MS: PSN and Xbox Live not comparable

By Tom Bramwell Published 19 April, 2010

TDG research ignores activity/pricing.

Microsoft has said research showing that a higher percentage of US PS3 owners have their consoles hooked up to the internet than Xbox 360 is misleading because it does not reflect pricing or the way services are used.

"What's important to keep in mind is the level of activity over an online service, especially when comparing a no-cost service [PlayStation Network] to a subscription-based service like Xbox Live," a Microsoft spokesperson told Eurogamer.

"When it comes to total entertainment experiences and value, Xbox 360 continues to lead the charge," the spokesperson continued, citing figures from NPD Group's Online Gaming 2010 Report that show how gamers use the service.

"Xbox 360 is the hands-down leader in online gaming, with 48 percent of all online gamers using Xbox 360 and Xbox Live to connect with friends, family and competitors" according to NPD's figures, said the spokesperson.

"This study also says that our members take full advantage of the immersive entertainment experiences over Xbox LIVE, logging the most hours of online play per week (7.3 hours/week) - that's more than PC gaming (6.6 hours/week) and our competition."

Last week market research firm TDG released data indicating that a slightly higher percentage of PS3 owners had connected their console to the net than among Xbox 360 or Wii owners.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (150) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • linksdad #1 2 years ago

    It also doesnt allow for PS3 picking up neighbours unsecured wifi, versus you actually having to plug in your xbox.

  • aidey6 #2 2 years ago

    They are probably on longer due to the slow downloading connections on PSN...

  • scorch #3 2 years ago

    Online gaming is still a small minority of the overall picture anyway.

  • Cpt_McOneball #4 2 years ago

    The PS3 may be better than the Xbox in some/many respects, but I have to say that online is an area where the 360 does dominate. I think every fanboy who begins some sort of flame war on here knows this.

  • villageidot #5 2 years ago

    its because you have to constantly update PS3 to play games (and sometimes blu-rays). and i mean constantly. also integrated wifi makes it easier.

  • Mkwone #6 2 years ago

    The one thing that annoys me about PSN is that nobody uses mics. Everything else is apples and oranges for me

  • Goodfella #7 2 years ago

    Yeah, I'm 'constantly' updating my PS3, so much so there is never any time to use it for anything else.

    villageidiot seems an apt name.

  • Toothball #8 2 years ago

    Live Marketplace is also way ahead of PSN in terms of actually releasing games and content worldwide. Europe is mostly left behind when it comes to download releases, which is poor in this day and age.

  • CaptainQuint #9 2 years ago

    Just everything about the Xbox Live service and interface is so streamlined and easy to use; compared to the rather limited and fiddly PS3 functionality. On Playstation there are too many button presses involved - accepting chat invites, reading messages etc (annoying during a game), they need to shorten the sequences. Having said that, I have no problems with online games themselves, on the PSN - Uncharted 2 plays great and I've never experienced any issues with other games.

    If I had to choose though, I'd rather pay for a premium service and get the functionality I want than just make do with a 'no frills' alternative. If Sony offered a paid, better version of PSN, I'd have no problems at all in opting for it.

  • kipper #10 2 years ago

    @Mkwone: I only play on XBL (where everyone has a free mic with the console), but there too the mic usage leaves a lot to be desired. Either I'm the only one with a mic, or if someone is talking I can't hear them clearly, or it's an annoying kid talking rubbish. Only occasionally do you actually get useful communication going in a public match.

  • youhavenomail #11 2 years ago

    So he's essentially saying that PSN and Live aren't comparable because Sony offers their service for free? You just bare that in mind, all you potential buyers who hate free services. 360 is clearly the console to take online.

    Sorry, what factual point was he addressing with this PR bullshit again?

  • frunk #12 2 years ago

    "When it comes to total entertainment experiences and value, Xbox 360 continues to lead the charge,"

    Erm... when evaluate "VALUE" I include cost... when the PSN is free this reeks of PR BOLLOX!

  • Retroid #13 2 years ago

    This isn't about services IMO, it's just about ease of connectability.

    PS3 has wifi as standard, 360 doesn't.

  • M_of_the_sys #14 2 years ago

    Ok. I thought it was bad enough that the outraged fanboys jumped on last weeks article for saying something it never actually said but Microsoft doing the same? That's quite funny.

    Well, I guess it was misleading in a way judging by the comments section of last weeks article.

  • Doctor_What #15 2 years ago

    "When it comes to total entertainment experiences and value, Xbox 360 continues to lead the charge,"

    The paid for service offers better value than the free one? I'll grant him that Live is slicker, easier, and better integrated, but PSN works and is pretty damn good too. For me, the free thing will always be better value. More PR bollocks again.

  • TheApologist #16 2 years ago

    Personally I wouldn't pay for online because it doesn't mean that much to me.

    Of course, this is all bollocks because it ignores PC which has been and remains at the vanguard of all things online whether it is buying or playing.

  • amiga_dude #17 2 years ago

    ROFL

    I haven't laught this much in years. Microsoft is complaining that it is the fact that Sony Playstation PSN is FREE and that why XBLA is in not much use. Alright I just do not get that. But also Microsoft dosn't claim it's not ture that more people are using PSN.

    "I come from a parallel universe" say's a Microsoft spokesman "As it's up to Sony that there is a paid for subscription charge on XBLA."

    You know it so ture, NOT!

  • ant72 #18 2 years ago

    Oh grief. Updates updates updates!!! Goodfella is spot on, sometimes I don't even get a chance to play for quick half an hour, I have to update something. Once you've downloaded the update.... you have to INSTALL it?!

    From my perspective, this is the biggest difference. Downloading THEN installing is real drag, XBL is much slicker.

    Also the PSN store sucks.

    I'm done.

  • Geordiemp #19 2 years ago

    Wish Microsoft would simply make on-line gaming part of the silver service, and put all the frills into gold.

    We would then really see how much the frills were liked by the market and their true value, and how many just want to play on-line.

    Personally I think everyone would move to silver, and so do microsoft, which is why we have to pay.

    Gold subs funds the lower console pricing, you buy the hardware cheaper, you rent the service.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 10:33

  • GamesConnoisseur #20 2 years ago

    ^^

    Perhaps we would see Silver service get 'upgraded' and frills in the Gold if and after when Sony decided to go for their previously considered suggestion of having subscription tier for PSN and keeping the free standard one without frills. Dont think MS is going to do anything to rock their steady income from XBL Gold and market.

    PSN especially Europe is not the gold standard, dont forget the fact its much inferior to other regions. I have no objection with its being free, and that is an advantage, but I would pay something if ITS will means PSN Europe standard get pushed to better that of US and Japan.

  • callum9999 #21 2 years ago

    Well I'm perfectly happy with the PSN. I don't doubt Live is better (never used it but I have no reason to think otherwise) but the PSN works, its speed is fine (I don't get slow downloads or much lag in games) and its free. If I want to play a game online, all I want to do is play it - I'm not bothered about any extras you may get elsewhere.

  • CaptainQuint #22 2 years ago

    To be honest, a dashboard update for PS3 would probably be suffient to alleviate my minor issues with the machine's functionality. Get rid of all the needless clutter in the menus and give us some shortcuts - they especially would be handy when in the middle of a game.

    Free is always better, but that doesn't always make it ideal.

  • linksdad #23 2 years ago

    The survey was for connected consoles, not those that played online.

    Both services at their basic level are free. PS offers more for free, but the paid for service from MS is better.

  • sfp_noodle #24 2 years ago

    hey MS PR man! ANYONE will choose a free service over a paid for one. in all honesty, what i seem to be paying for is loads of annoying adverts on my dashboard. the best thing about live is the party chat and tthe fact tht u can invite people to games with a single button press. if sony ever add tht kind of functionality, then i honestly see little to no difference in the services both consoles offer to me. id most likely buy all my titles on the ps3 if that ever happened.

  • drumbaby #25 2 years ago

    Microsoft continue to (lead the) charge.

  • CaptainQuint #26 2 years ago

    Hehe @the folk who make out like MS are the only company to ever pull a bit of spin out of their arse.

  • Geordiemp #27 2 years ago

    ^^

    What is shit about PSN ? I have both consoles, and play mainly coop games, and once connected there is no difference at all.

    The experience of playing on-line, lag and performance is provided by the GAME net code / publisher server etc, not PSN or live.

    When you play MW2 on PSN or LIVE you play peer to peer, the experience is users connection speed, net code of software and thats it.

    When you play an EA game like BFBC2 its on a EA server...again its nothing to do with LIVE or PSN which just allows you to connect to the EA server.

    And demos, jeesh, the same demos are released on both networks. They are provided by the game companies period. With silver, they make you wait a week. Thats it.

    Very rarely I find I can only get a demo on one service. I usually get both versions, try them out, and decide which one to buy if its a single player or has system link.

    If game has system link and there is no PSN LAN option then its 360, it has heavy on-line only then PSN cos its free. I used to have 2 gold subs (2 xboxes) but at £ 70 per year for 2 consoles dropped them to silver....
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 11:10

  • jag10 #28 2 years ago

    free service that offers dedicated servers for it's exclusive games is awesome.

  • CaptainQuint #29 2 years ago

    Demo exclusivity alone wouldn't swing it for me - PSN has always had the demos I'd be interested anyway. Having said that, I very rarely use the PS3 for demos.

  • Geordiemp #30 2 years ago

    ^^

    Reason we went with both consoles is you can pick up old full games for a tenner or £ 15 at a push.

    Why play PS3 minis or whatever when I can pick up Halo 3 for same price on gamestracker.

    Why play arcade when I can pick up uncharted 1 etc...

    Older games that are now cheap >>> download games. Over time, it makes up the cost of having both consoles.

    There are so many great games on both systems, I dont feel the need to what feels like scavenging arcade or minis.

    Cross game chat and party, great, really, I just want to play the game. Fine features, let others pay for them, give me online gaming for free thanks..

    And YES, PSN does tell you when friends are on-line. You cant see what friends are playing but I dont want to pay for that.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 11:26

  • sfp_noodle #31 2 years ago

    ^^

    its funny how u mention the liittle things tht cud be regarded as bonuses but dont mention the actual online playing experience, which is essentially what ur paying for with LIVE. in the respect, both services are equal

    edit - comment was aimed at teh

    Edited by sfp_noodle at 19/04/10 @ 12:07

  • Geordiemp #32 2 years ago

    ^^

    Comments about sucking dicks and the like, if you only have the one console, then defend it to the hilt. Great.

    If you had both, and used both regularly, then you will know that they both play the same. I like live, but resent paying for it, thats just my opinion of having used both services for years.

    Both PSN and LIVE tell you when friends are on-line. The difference is you can send the invite before starting the game in live, on PSN you have to send a message, both start the game, then connect to each other.

    Yes LIVE is a nice way of starting together, but for me (2 360's and 2 Ps3s) I dont want to pay £ 70 per year for 2 gold subs to save a few button presses.

    And back to demos, the option to release a DEMo is a decisoin by the game and publisher, not live or PSN. There are multiple demos every week on both consoles, for full AAA games they are the same demos.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 11:33

  • Geordiemp #33 2 years ago

    ^^

    Wrong, I never got a demo of mass effect 2. Answer that one ! I want one, on the fence about it.

    AAA game, no demo.

    Indie games, small games, MOST have demos, PSN and LIVE. Nobody would buy a small game without it.

    If you have both consoles, why so agressive against PSN ?

    Some games have LIVE type features like Uncharted 2, unfortunately not all are so easy to party up ...

    If I have 2 xboxes and we want to play (me and my son) together on a coop game, then each console must have GOLD to do so, on my and his account. If I could pay one sub for 2 consoles, I would have to move my gamertag around between them, and only 1 360 connected at any one time.

    Yes, I just paid direct for LIVE, did not scavenge the internet for cheaper, BUT I still need 2 golds so its expensive taken over 3 years ( 2 x £ 25 x 3 = £ 150). I resent the £ 150 when I can get it for free.

    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 11:41

  • icematt12 #34 2 years ago

    How is it misleading Microsoft? It's a black and white issue to me, the person's console is either connected or it isn't. The services offered has no effect, a silver account owner is still online but has restrictions. Who knows, if wifi was standard maybe 360 would have beat PS3.

    Typical PR counter.

  • Spydy #35 2 years ago

    I enjoyed MW2 more on Live more than I enjoyed U2 on PS3. If I get bored of MW2 is there a need for me to update my Live subscription? The services are nice, but not a deal breaker.

    I don't think it matters if you pay or not. It's down to the games, surely?




  • Brutos #36 2 years ago

    Considering the TDG survey only had a sample of 835 Xbox and Playstation users compared to the millions of consoles sold in the U.S. i'm surprised Microsoft or Sony bother commenting.

    Also there's a hell of a difference between just having a console connected, and actually playing games online.

  • chubster2010 #37 2 years ago

    re 'its because you have to constantly update PS3 to play games'

    Is the Xbox any better in this regard? I've had to up-date flippin' DEMOS on the 360 before I can play them quite a few times.

    It's really not that much of a hassle in either case to be honest though.

  • Geordiemp #38 2 years ago

    I agree I would like PSN to be easier to connect up to, especially some EA games, Uncharted 2 is so easy to party up and its like LIVE but it has to be a game feature. If we dont complain it wont improve.

    On the other had, Silver should not restrict playing peer to peer or games on a EA or activision server. Thats just wrong, Microsoft are actually stopping you connecting to a PUBLISHER service.

    Take Crackdown 2, we love crackdown on system link, but Microsoft have removed system link on Crackdown 2. So not only do I have 2 buy 2 copies of the game, but I cannot connect them locally.

    If all users went silver and protested, microsoft would have to let silver users go on-line but cutt out the frills .....There is a forum thread on EG where users constatntly beg for LIVE codes and thats just SAD.

    And yes, Little big planet and PAIN are constantly evolving and you have to download almost every time you connect. PAIN is the worst, but thats an evolving game typoe and nothing to do with LIVE or PSN - if a game keeps expanding, you have to download, or buy expansion discs....cant see the poiint here
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 12:03

  • fknetwork #39 2 years ago

    Live pisses all over PSN,

    You get what you pay for and with PSN it really is shit, crap download speeds, annoying updates that take ages, hardly any demos and content, you don't realise how good live is until you try a sub standard service like PSN lol.

  • dbranchevans #40 2 years ago

    There's a lot of high horse about the online experience here, its already been pointed out thats ones chargable and ones not but also I think you'll find a lot of people just log on to play online rather than organising things with mates. I have a mic for the PSN and yep, there's not a lot of chat, however the downside of the Live system is there's plenty of chat but usually about total garbage!

    Both services are a massive improvement on what consoles had before but they're still quite a bit behind what some of the PC offerings have been.

  • sfp_noodle #41 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    u do realise tht u claiming u have both consoles doesn't add much credibility to ur arguement right? unless u back it up with reasonable theory/facts, people on this site will continue to laugh at u and neg u for fun. i think uve said 'psn sucks dick' around 4 times now. tht comment alone warrants a negative vote, because not only is it incorrect, but incredibly childish and immature. simple fact is, both consoles offer the SAME online service, but one charges and one does not. the only features i use on live are the online gaming side, and the party chat features. the only thing i use on psn is the online gaming...notice the difference there? paying £40 a year for party chat and hmm, a bunch of adverts on the dashboard. oh, and one button invites. the only reason i stick with it is because i have an equal number of friends who use both consoles.

  • fknetwork #42 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp
    Your a tool, could you suck sony's **** any more?

  • Fur_Cough #43 2 years ago

    PSN online gaming is about as good as the original XB Live service - which was fine, but you had to pay for it. So I'm very happy paying nothing for it. Given that the XBL subscription is about the same as a full-price game, and I only buy 3-4 games per year, it is way more than a token amount. In that respect, the value of XBL is in fact very poor - as, generally speaking, most M$ add-ons seem to be.

  • chubster2010 #44 2 years ago

    Live vs PSN

    Well....I started out with the PS3 and got a 360 about 6 months ago, and can honestly say that I do no think the £40 subscription fee for Live God is good value for money. This is very much a personal opinion - if you feel you're getting value for money, then that's good - but personally, the 'extra features' you get with Live are neither here nor there for the most part.

    Additionally (and this is aimed primarily at teh9182!), I don't think there is a clear 'winner' if start comparing features like for like - yes, Live has things like cross-game chat etc, but PSN has Vidzone, a browser, Home etc etc. As to which feature set is more appealing is again down to personal preference.

    It's swings and roundabouts isn't it?

    Most significantly, I'd say that both services are pretty good, managing to fulfil the demands of all but the pickiest of gamers.

    Addition:
    Teh - is 1 Vs. 100 really something to shout about? I thought it was flippin' awful!!
    Edited by chubster2010 at 19/04/10 @ 12:23

  • Geordiemp #45 2 years ago

    Just to stoke the argument, when you buy a DLC of PSN, you buy one and can download it 4 more times on ANY Ps3.

    Since we have 2 consoles, every DLC we buy its buy one, get one free.

    On Live, I have to buy the DLC twice for our 2 360's as each is tied to the console.

    By the way, I really hate fanboys whose literacy for why something is good comes down to sucking something or personal insults - Just confirms there are many ameoba lowlife and why I dont bother with headsets on LIVE or PSN. Children.

    At FKnetwork, I imagine you have baggy jeans and are cool. Hahah
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 12:27

  • drxym #46 2 years ago

    I think XBL is objectively still the better online service, offering matchmaking and voice chat but considering it COSTS MONEY, it damned well aught to be. I would be pissed off if I were paying $50 a year and it didn't offer a premium level of service.

    Even so I've owned a PS3 for close to 3 years and I'm quite happy with what it offers in the way of online. PSN provides single sign on and some other infrastructure but otherwise leaves it up to the game to implement multiplayer. It reminds me of the PC where multiplayer is typically free (except for MMOs). Some games offer a great online experience, others won't. You factor the quality of multiplayer in when you make a purchase.

    I think in a few cases the PSN model actually offers superior multiplayer than XBL. Games like MAG, Warhawk, Resistance demonstrate a compelling online experience partly because they can offer dedicated servers which means more players and better reliability.

    I just hope PSN stays free. I imagine that what it offers as of this moment will stay free but I can well imagine a future where Sony start charging for matchmaking, voice chat, clans or other such things.

  • Goodfella #47 2 years ago

    teh9182 and fknetwork are two very good reasons to stick with the PSN.

  • Geordiemp #48 2 years ago

    Nothing against teh9182, he has both consoles and maybe has friends on Live and maybe uses party allot and reasons why he likes the extra features.

    Still cant find a way to pay once for a game on 2 consoles, as even if I could move my gamertag between the 2 360's, I cant understand how to play as we need 2 different gamertags to be connected at same time.

    Yes, Sony and some pubs lose out when we can get PSN DLC on 2 ps3 and play them at same time on-line. Great LOL.


    fknetwork, when me and my son play together we dont have headsets on live or PSN because of the people like this.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 12:37

  • chubster2010 #49 2 years ago

    @Teh
    re 'VidZone and a web browser are not features of PSN'

    So you can lump 1 vs 100 in with Live, but you can't put VidZone under PSN? How does that work?

  • sfp_noodle #50 2 years ago

    teh9182 says

    'PSN has none of the following: -

    Cross-game chat
    Cross-game invites in all games
    1 Vs. 100
    Demos of all downloadable games
    Voice messaging
    Live status updates for all games
    Party mode for 8 players
    Private voice chat
    Multiple voice chat channels switchable at will'

    cross game chat is the same has private chat. multiple voice chanells is cool, but who uses it now theres party chat? party chat for 8 players also ties into ur cross game chat arguement. 1 vs 100? i think the majority of live users played tht for a week, got bored, went bk to playing games.oh, and if all games have demos, wheres my gears of war 1 and 2 demo? wherer my halo 3/odst demo? wheres my mass effect demo? ud think MS wud at least give a demo of some of their best exclusive games mate. oh, and psn has actually started using game status updates, as ull notice in MW2 and need for speed shift (only examples i know of).

    so now ive revised ur list, lets see what ur left with -

    cross game chat
    cross game invites
    voice messaging

    £40 a year for tht u say? well...

  • makeamazing #51 2 years ago

    @teh9182 wow calm down mate, its only an online service.

    PSN is perfectly fine, yes both have their good and bad points, but seriously anyone who rants about PSN being poor are usually the same people who say the PS3 has no games, and we know the type of people they are.

    Its great that you like the Xbox network better it really is, but for most of us who are using the PSN, we dont have any reasons to complain (no problems).

    Finally, why are MS making a song and dance about this, its really not a big deal, they could have let it slide and no one one have noticed, now they make themselves look silly by defending the Xbox service.

  • EightBall92 #52 2 years ago

    With Microsoft it's more than comparable when they're in the lead, but if they're behind then it's not.

    /sarcasm

    lol

  • Geordiemp #53 2 years ago

    Looking foward, we have NATAL and MOVE coming up this year, so both consoles will probably get good at Friend video conferencing..

    It will be standard by end of this year I guess..

  • djed #54 2 years ago

    MY HEAD HURTS FROM ALL THE SPIN

  • sfp_noodle #55 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    considering how flawed ur arguements are, and many ppl here have already highlighted tht, i dont think u can really call justified arguements flawed. coupled with the fact u keep mentioning tht 'psn sucks fat dick,' anything u say tht might be sensible instantly loses any credibility.

  • GaryHoward #56 2 years ago

    I mostly watch BBC IPlayer than play PSN games online haha.

  • Murton #57 2 years ago

    This response is meaningless as it doesn't take into account the silver level of membership. The recent figures show that people in America are either ignorant of the silver level of membership or else think it's not worth plugging in to use.

    The original study wasn't about online services but how many people used online connectivity.

  • chubster2010 #58 2 years ago

    @Teh
    re 'You can put your gamertag(s) on any USB stick and move them between machines. 2 different gamertags connected at the same time is no problem though. Can't do that on the PS3 at all, can you? That's another thing they need to sort out. '

    You can log into your PSN id on any PS3...so you don't need a USB.

  • sfp_noodle #59 2 years ago

    teh says

    'BTW, regarding this. Are you saying that you wouldn't like PSN to have those features? Some people seem to be defending Sony to the point where they are saying that and that PSN could stay as it is forever and that would be cool with them. Screw that. I want all the features I can get'

    really? then why doesnt the 360 have recharegable pads?
    or built in wi-fi? or easilly upgradeable hard drives tht dont cost a kidney?
    why dont all wireless controllers come with play and charge cables? since 90% of users will most likely use a battery pack.
    why did it take MS 5 years to get rid of memory cards? ps3 has USB transfer functionality since launch.

    ur bitching so much about the features of a service tht u seem to forget tht tht same console lacks so many features tht shud very well be included, or shud have been included at launch. dont get me wrong, id love to have cross game invites and chat for all ps3 games, but the way ur talking, its like the ps3 has online, and no kind of user interface whatsoever. grow up

  • sfp_noodle #60 2 years ago

    teh9182 says

    'You have absolutely zero rebuttal to anything I wrote in response to your post, so instead you've chosen to concentrate on the fact that I said "PSN sucks dick" as if that instantly invalidates all of my arguments. I could just as easily say that your kindergarten level grasp of the English language invalidates anything you've said, but then anything you've said isn't valid anyway and revolves entirely around clutching at straws to defend Sony. Well done, champ!'

    look at my game collection and ull soon realise which console gets most of my time. hint - it isnt the ps3. so why am i defending the ps3? because all the shit u throw in its direction is just tht - shit.

  • chubster2010 #61 2 years ago

    @teh9182
    I really think you need to calm down.

    .

  • Doctor_What #62 2 years ago

    teh: you ask if I would like some of the Live features on PSN - maybe I would, but I don't actually care in the slightest that they're not there either. Most of the time I've played on Live I spent wishing that everyone else would shut the hell up, so the chat features aren't really a bonus to me.

    Can't you just accept that some people are very happy with the value that they get from their free service instead of constantly telling them that they are idiots for not preferring to pay for something that's marginally better?

    For example, do you agree that for people who aren't such dedicated multiplayer gamers then most of the things that Live does better become irrelevant?

    How about a different side of things: I prefer the content on PSN. I happen to like arty and experimental games. There's nothing remotely like Flower or Echochrome on Live.

  • onyxbox #63 2 years ago

    The only reason people pay for XBL is because it's the only way for owners of that system to play online. I have a problem with this whole thing. If I buy a game where half of it requires you to be online, why should I pay again for that part.

    If you ask me it should be included in the price of the game... and to think people always moan about paying for DLC that's on the disk... well how about having to pay again to play half of what you already bought.

    Grr! MS need to put online play into the free silver service and limit to text chat etc. putting the Siver accounts on equal footing with PSN.

  • chubster2010 #64 2 years ago

    @Doc
    re ' There's nothing remotely like Flower or Echochrome on Live.'

    I'm not sure I'd agree with that - there's a ton of more arty stuff on the Indie store, then you have the likes of Braid.

    The PSN does have some great arty/weird titles though - like you I'm well into my more abstract gaming. Did you enjoy Linger in Shadows? Bonkers. Oh...and Noby Noby Boy is amazing as well - I noticed last night that Girl has reached Saturn.

  • Geordiemp #65 2 years ago

    So, If I put my gamertag on a USB and I download a game on xbox 1, I can move it to xbox 2 and do same.

    BUT how do me and my son both play said game, as he has a different gamertag. I need to give it a try, as been meaning to download some COD 360 WAW zombie maps...

    Has anyone who got 2 xboxes done this..... ?I have read forum after forum and the DLC is tied ot the console and the user ?

    ^^

    NO. If I play a game with my son, LIVE or PSN, we dont connect headsets as I would rather listen to the game sounds and effects than everyone cursing your manhood or your mother....

    why would anyone want to do an 8 way chat ? Get a 360 or Ps3 camera and do video conferencing and you can pull faces as well as curse LOL
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 13:31

  • Geordiemp #66 2 years ago

    ^^ Clear as mud

    So If I download on xbox 1, and have my gamertag on a USB, I take my USB to xbox 2 and re-download it.

    Say its the DLC for COD WAW zombies....

    So I put disk 1 into xbox 1 and play game with USB stick in it. Understood.

    Console xbox 2 we put in disk 2 and the console has the DLC but no gamertag associated with the DLC, so my sons gamertag is logged in and he tries to use it, but he cant. You cant have 2 same gamertags signed in at same time on 2 consoles....

    It sounds easy with 1 console, when you got 2, its a PAIN. Hence we prefer system link games...The way I understand it, the game is linked to the console, easy if you change consoles, but we need to use both at same time !
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 13:44

  • VandelayIndustries #67 2 years ago

    @teh9182 - You need to be signed in to use VidZone, it is part of the service, third party or not.

  • RustyBullet #68 2 years ago

    I play mostly online so Xbox Live is where I spend most of my time. When I play the PS3 I use it only for exclusives and then when I play online either no one has a MIC or there are just shouty little bstards. PSN and Bluetooth headset - thats the main fault BT is shite, If the missus farts in the living room people can here what she has been doing, its a joke. Before anyone says get a better BT headset i have tried 5 now and all have the same outcome no matter what setting I have them on.
    Edited by RustyBullet at 19/04/10 @ 13:48

  • Geordiemp #69 2 years ago

    ah, so if I originally download on console 2 (my sons) with a USB stick with my gamertag on it, then move USB to console 1...

    Console 2 can play it even without my gamertag on that console ?

    If thats so will give it a try....

  • Geordiemp #70 2 years ago

    The download was going to be COD WAW zombies which we would play system link not online, so maybe it will work ?
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 13:52

  • zedzee #71 2 years ago

    There are more PS3 owners on-line because they all had to download that "Don't Use Your PS3" firmware, that broke nearly all of them recently.

  • sfp_noodle #72 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    read the above post #91. tht is what u called a justified arguement, not the steaming pile of cow dung uve been brewing in this thread so far

  • M_of_the_sys #73 2 years ago

    I get annoyed if the Mrs sings in the kitchen when I'm on the PS3 so crossgame chat can fuck right off. :p

  • SavageEvil #74 2 years ago

    I own both systems and have both online services, I'm still not sold on paying for playing a game online I purchased for $60. Live is pretty nifty in it's interface, very slick but the meat and potatoes is the exact same on both. MW2 on both comes down to connection, as do most other cross platform games, BFBC2 plays exactly the same online on PS3 as it does on 360. What are you really paying for on Live anyway?

    The thing I don't understand is, is cross game chat something that we should be paying for? Isn't chatting across a broadband network built into the system? Wasn't that included in the NXE update? What is with all the adverts? On the web adverts are on free sites, paid for don't have adverts...why is it backwards on Live? I'm not against Live, but I fail to understand why MS charges for cross game chat and Sony is likely to do the same...to me it doesn't seem like cross chat is something that is handled by some server somewhere, where the system is fully capable of doing so. Seems like these guys just look for ways to get money out of us.
    PSN is marginally the smarter choice, as when you play online there is virtually no difference, free makes it a no brainer. My gripe is, is what we pay for on Live really fair? I think that basic online gameplay you shouldn't have to pay for, seriously why am I being charged constantly to play a game online? I have to pay for internet access which gives me 15MB bandwidth, unlimited usage.

    Live and PSN are the exact same thing, the bells and whistles which are basically depending on personal tastes are which set them apart, but also one glaring omission MS doesn't point out, to have any sort of online play with a 360 game you have to have the paid for service...so saying people don't mind paying isn't exactly truth, they have no choice if they want online play. I know why paying Live customers might feel the need to defend their purchase, but I share no such conviction. I want to know the reasons for which I am being charged and whether they are worth it or not, Live gives you 0 choices. Should sony have a premium service, i will stay free unless there is something there that I think I would want to pay for, highly doubt it.

  • Geordiemp #75 2 years ago

    Fair points except for PAIN, which is episodic and keeps getting added to and is a bad example of comparing LIVE to PSN as if there was a game like that on LIVE it would also be a PAIN.

    LIVE and PSN have similar download speeds, I like the way live installs it where as I have to click to install on PSN.

    But the amount of conetent is game specific. Multiplat games have same download content and download speed. Nothing worth paying for there.

    I also prefer the 360 installs, but our 80 GB's are a bit restrictive (compared to Ps3 anyway).
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 14:18

  • sfp_noodle #76 2 years ago

    @SavageEvil

    cudnt have been better said my friend

  • fiery_jackass #77 2 years ago

    I'm relatively new to the PSN, been using Gold for a while. I get why one shouldn't expect download speeds akin to Gold (although the download/install double whammy is a killer). However l don't quite understand why the interface has to be so clumsy and off-putting by comparison. Definitely needs a re-jig if it's to hold my interest

  • chubster2010 #78 2 years ago

    @Fiery
    re 'However l don't quite understand why the interface has to be so clumsy and off-putting by comparison. Definitely needs a re-jig if it's to hold my interest'

    I find the XMB really easy to use and have found the 360 much more confusing...but I think that's simply a result of being more used to the former. With XMB, I know how everything works and where everything is...on the 360 it takes me just that much to longer to get things done....but both are nicely designed.

  • Acrid #79 2 years ago

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    What exactly are M$ so worried about from this useless poll that they feel the need to realease a statement explaining how great they are and how rubbish everyone else is?

  • dsmx #80 2 years ago

    PSN gets the iplayer which is a really nice feature being able to watch practically any bbc show whenever you want, it's also something the xbox 360 will never get.

  • chubster2010 #81 2 years ago

    @Teh
    re 'iPlayer is not part of Playstation Network and never say never about the 360 getting it.'

    I can't see it happening any time soon, as (to quote the Telegraph):

    'According to sources close to the BBC’s Future Media and Technology department, a deal between the two parties has still been unable to be reached because Microsoft’s strategy of charging for all content on its Xbox Live platform is incompatible with the BBC’s public service remit.'

    [link url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/6671901/Xbox-360-iPlayer-launch-delayed-indefinitely.html
    ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mi...[/link]

    If only Live was free.... ;)

  • chubster2010 #82 2 years ago

    @Farticus

    'I have a choice whether to pay for XBL or not as I have a 360 and a PS3 that I can game on....I choose to pay for XBL because those tools make organising online gaming faster and easier for me and I find value in the more streamlined, feature-rich dash integration.'

    So...if you chose not to pay for live, you could play games online on the PS3 yeah? So...what do you do when the latest Halo or Gears of War comes out? Where's your choice then? It's either stump up the £40 for Live or don't play them online.

    I honestly don't think MS leave much choice available to 360 owners who want to get the most out a system they spent hundreds of pounds on...

  • chubster2010 #83 2 years ago

    @Teh
    re iPlayer

    Of course nothing is impossible...but it seems in this case it would require a fairly considerable shift in MS approach to the content that the 360 hosts and how the deals are struck.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Sky would be a bit miffed if the 360 started offering competing content (ie iPlayer) free of charge.

    re ' Nice emotive use of the term "spent hundreds of pounds on" BTW. lol. It hasn't stopped Gears and Halo being more successful commercially than any equivalent PS3 exclusive games either, has it? ODST outsold Killzone 2's lifetime sales after being out for just 1 day, yet people had to pay to play it online. Funny that! '

    It's true though - if you've spent x amount on a console, you want to get the most out it - to not get Live would in effect hamstring your enjoyment of a lot (most?) games on the system.

    As for how well Gears and Halo have sold when compared to PS3 exclusives - i couldn't really give a toss to be honest with you! But I take your point that their success can be used as evidence for the number of people will to pay to play. Still...the fact remains that the degree of choice to the consumer is relatively limited.
    Edited by chubster2010 at 19/04/10 @ 15:30

  • amiga_dude #84 2 years ago

    ROFL
    Total respect to teh9182. Everything you started has only convinced me there no point to Microsoft XBox360. Well done here an achievement for ender to show Playstation is just better!

    It so bad that on the PS3 you get Wifi in box.
    It so bad that on the PS3 you can get HDD 500 GB for less then £40.
    It so bad that all PS3 have HDD.
    It so bad that on PS3 there web browser.
    It so bad that on PS3 that can watch programes from BBC on iPlayer for free.
    It so bad that on PS3 there lots music videos you get for free (VidZone).
    It so bad that on PS3 that can play back in Full HD.
    It so bad that on PS3 that external storage with only limmited to a max of 16TB.
    It so bad that on PS3 has officially certified DivX playback.
    It so bad that on PS3 you can view JPEG, TIFF, BMP, GIF, and PNG.

    I can go on lot more but that will keep "teh9182" busy defending Microsoft. Go on do you best, ROFL.
    Edited by amiga_dude at 19/04/10 @ 15:31

  • chubster2010 #85 2 years ago

    I'm perfectly happy paying for my TV licence, as I think the BBC does as excellent job - we're lucky to have it.

    The difference between the BBC and Xbox Live (which is the comparison you're making) is that the BBC isn't funded through a ton of advertising. Live gets the best of both worlds - subscriptions from the users and advertising revenue from the industry. With that in mind, it's obvious why MS are continuing down the subscription based route...but that doesn't mean that I have to like it!

  • M_of_the_sys #86 2 years ago

    "You're paying towards iPlayer just by owning a TV set"

    Do you really think that a TV licence is just for iPlayer?

  • delboy83uk #87 2 years ago

    More people use free service shocker

  • amiga_dude #88 2 years ago

    teh9182, your good.

    You do not need TV lincence just if own a TV. It only need it if watch, recorded TV or watch TV as it live broadcast, that dosn't include catchup TV or youtube things.


    So watching iPlayer on PS3 you do not need to pay TV Tax.

  • M_of_the_sys #89 2 years ago

    @amiga_dude

    Check the TV licence site. If you own a PS3 and use it to record or watch TV programs as they're shown (PlayTV I presume), you need a TV licence.
    Edited by M_of_the_sys at 19/04/10 @ 15:41

  • amiga_dude #90 2 years ago

    It so bad that on PS3 that external storage with only limmited to a max of 16TB.

    teh9182

    You are quite ill-informed aren't you? External storage on the 360 isn't limited to 16 TB (presumably you meant GB). It's only when you use a USB device as a memory unit that such limitations exist. You can use a much bigger drive than that for storing music, movies and photos and connect that to your 360.

    Not I do mean 16TB not GB. On PS3 you can have external storage that is up to max of 16TB. The XBox is limmited in GB what was it again, 16GB but if use 2 USB connections it 32GB.

    PS I am not from PS3 defence fund, you should see some of Videos on YouTube. Which I can watch on PS3, I can not wait you watch videos on XBox360 on YouTube.
    Edited by amiga_dude at 19/04/10 @ 15:45

  • chubster2010 #91 2 years ago

    @teh9182
    I do have a 360 yes...Like you, I own the lot.

  • amiga_dude #92 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys
    "Check the TV licence site. If you own a PS3 and use it to record or watch TV programs as they're shown (PlayTV I presume), you need a TV licence. "

    Correct that is true, but... I did say
    "You do not need TV lincence just if own a TV. It only need it if watch, recorded TV or watch TV"
    Thats what PlayTV doing, watch/recording tv.

  • M_of_the_sys #93 2 years ago

    @amiga_dude

    Yeah I added that in with the edit. I always thought it was for iPlayer when I first saw it whilst paying for one.

  • amiga_dude #94 2 years ago

    Alright can the PS3 have software install on external devices ie USB/HDD?
    Yes
    So why can't everyone do it?
    I do not know but Sony doesn't want supply content that way.

    XBox360 can not do FullHD as everything has to upscalled to 1080 from 720. FullHD can be done native on PS3 no upscalled needed.

  • amiga_dude #95 2 years ago

    HFS+
    Wow, Apple thing cool. Now back real word is supported out box on Windows XP/Vista/7?
    No, you have to install software to access it from Windows machine.

    Is FAT32 supported on Windows XP/Vista/7?
    Yes. But will not be able to format a partion bigger then 32GB from Windows XP/Vista/7 without using other software, but can read/write files on FAT32 using Windows XP/Vista/7 with no extra software installed.

    I will not go down ego route like some trolls. ;)

  • M_of_the_sys #96 2 years ago

    "Anyone that argues otherwise is obviously not all there, so I fully expect you to reply and argue otherwise." :D

    Edit: Yes. I have nothing of interest to add.
    Edited by M_of_the_sys at 19/04/10 @ 16:20

  • amiga_dude #97 2 years ago

    Alright would like to prove you XBox can do 1080 really? Are ready to show me XBox360 really show 1080. It can not do it. It all upscale.

    Show me video of XBox360 showing 1 to 1 image with it. With a simple grid of one white pixile next to one black pixel.
    On Xbox360 it will look blured but on PS3 it looks like it should.

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakQpMSKP7I
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakQpMSKP7I
    [/link]

    Please someone at DF prove this all wrong and will eat my words.

  • amiga_dude #98 2 years ago

    Is HFS+ support out the Box on Windows 7?
    No, same as Windows XP/Vista.

    Why is Windows 7 so important. Beacuse Windows 7 was released after XBox360 by Microsoft and do not offer support out of the box. But there is limited support for FAT32 in Windows but that is still more support then give for HFS+.

  • Geordiemp #99 2 years ago

    Any TV that is 1080P will have a good built in scaler, would rather my 42 inch panny did scaling using a dedicated scaler than xbox or ps3. Its the source resolution thats important, where scaling is done is pointless arguement.

    Also lots of fun stuff on HD, I prefer Ps3 cos got 500 GB real cheap and I still fret over which games are installed on our 80 GB 360's...So multimedia is Ps3 unless 360 got a decent cheaper hard drive. Only blu ray / torrent pirates would want > 4GB media size, thats allot to download, buy the DVD.

    [link url=http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-112-pach-attack/64491
    ]http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episod...[/link]

    Gametrailers, Pach talks about LIVE and price increase, watch it, microsoft can do it because they can, as live players have no choice, they have invested in the hardware and the games, and so have to sub live. The only choice is not to play on-line or change hardware and all your game library.

  • alan_stealth #100 2 years ago

    and I can only say.......................................
    FUCK U SONY?

  • Doctor_What #101 2 years ago

    Teh: you are quite clearly right. Obviously. Well done. You have won the thread.

    Or you could just stop? You know, you clearly feel differently from the rest of us but we don't agree with your view. That's okay. Let it go. Breathe deeply.

  • CaptainQuint #102 2 years ago

    Of all the mud flinging going on here, the most telling thing is the sheer number of people who are chiming in with "I use my Xbox for most things, including online, and I use my PS3 mainly for it's exclusives."

    Nobody seems to say the opposite of that, which is somewhat revealing.
    Edited by CaptainQuint at 19/04/10 @ 16:43

  • Geordiemp #103 2 years ago

    ^^

    I used 360 for exclusives (Halo 3 and ODST), Gears, Res 5, COD WAWm Crackdown mainly, and have 2 copies and play via system link, also some single player games that were ported badly to Ps3 (orange box ) etc etc.

    All games that have to have on-line I buy for Ps3, or that are DLC heavy as I only pay once for a copy to both Ps3's....

    Many people have Ps3 and Xbox 360, it makes sense, why miss out on Halo or Uncharted. I jsut dont pay for Gold anymore so Microsoft loose the sale to Ps3 if that game needs it and I cant play system link coop.

    I bet I am not the only one to be not happy about paying to play on-line, even in this thread numerous users (and every silver member) would agree..

    P.S Pach is an arse, but a funny one. His comments ring a chord though, gamers have no choice.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 16:50

  • amiga_dude #104 2 years ago

    Military Madness on XBox360 and it 720 and on the PS3 it was 1080 as it no good at 1080 it is at 1080.

    <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUFYZhcpkkU
    ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUFYZhcpkkU
    </a>

    I could go on games like WipeoutHD etc it starts getting a bit silly.

    As for that video it dosn't prove the XBox360 really doing 1080, it upscalling. Sorry to say it but XBox can not do 1080 for real! 1080 support can not be added it hardware issue. No software update will ever fix it. Just like PS3 can not output HDMI 1.4 as it HDMI 1.3.
    PS XBox with HDMI are HDMI 1.2 and can not be upgraded to HDMI 1.3 which is need for 3D.
    Edited by amiga_dude at 19/04/10 @ 16:50

  • Geordiemp #105 2 years ago

    ^^

    Well, sing LIVE's priases and value enough in game forums and posts, and Microsoft will realise the value of their product and give you more value.....

    I would like to gold again, (mainly for Crackdown 2 as they removed system link so you have to have gold) but want it cheaper as I have 2 subs to pay for 2 consoles. Maybe will get a months subs at Xmas, not being bullied into getting Gold again.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 16:54

  • amiga_dude #106 2 years ago

    teh9182

    I agree it not much of incress in money. Also will not ever say what can/can't do with your money as it is YOUR money I just think the subscription is wrong.

    Lets all be friends.

  • Geordiemp #107 2 years ago

    Jeesh,

    Sky does 1080i, but its heavily compressed, If I want to pay to watch a film in 1080P it better have a decent bitrate.

    Its not about 1080P, its 1080P + decent bitrate. Look up bitrate and blu ray, and tell me the quality of 360 1080...

    That also goes for Ps3 and downloading / streaming. Quality sucks on both, period.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 16:59

  • amiga_dude #108 2 years ago

    teh9182

    Please dont tell me that really think games dont use tricks to achieve the objective. Most games on PS3 and XBox360 are really being rendered at about 400-600 and not 720 or 1080 and then upscalled.

  • Goodfella #109 2 years ago

    Core blimey, teh9182 really is on a mission. You've seemingly spent the entire day fighting the corner for Microsoft. I hope it was worth it.

  • Geordiemp #110 2 years ago

    Hey guys,

    Go argue about this article [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=242728
    ]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

    It was also on eurogamer but they removed it (360 bias ?)

  • amiga_dude #111 2 years ago

    Streaming is going to rubbish next Blu-Ray. But that just down to fact with Blu-Ray you can use very high bit rates.

    I persionaly say with streaming it more important you have a low lag then bandwidth issue. But must have bandwidth to support the stream media in first place. There is no point trying to stream video that 2m on 1m connection.

  • chessboxer #112 2 years ago

    @amiga_dude

    The 360 has almost 10 games that are native 1920x1080. The PS3 has over 40 games that are native 1920x1080.

    Not all are named (like Lumines Supernova or Braid) but 28 of them are listed here for the PS3 (I'm not including WipEout HD or the GT5:p/GT:HD vehicle renders in that 28).

  • amiga_dude #113 2 years ago

    teh9182
    You better tell DF they are wrong as well. That games are not at 400-600. As DF they do not know what talking about. Also get touch with Crytek, EA, Activision etc and then explain to them what doing so wrong, as obviously can not program games on XBox360 720 or 1080 as DF says otherwise the games are not at 720 or 1080.

  • Geordiemp #114 2 years ago

    Allot of multiplats run better on xbox thats why I have 2. If a dev cant make good use of SPU's and do a cheap port then it suffers. Yes, it does run unreal and PC centric games much better.

    Sony first party is a different ball game though, and 360 really needs some better engines to compete (Crytek). Sorry, nothing comes close to looking like uncharted 2, yet. Bring it on I say, want good games for both systems...

    Some of the DF articles are a bit biased, I can read thru that OK, with Lens of truth as well helps me decide, as well as whether I have to pay for Live or downloads and I weigh it up.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 19/04/10 @ 17:29

  • amiga_dude #115 2 years ago

    So what the game that not upscalling on XBox360 that was mentioned at beyond3d (chessboxer) I must missed something.
    Edited by amiga_dude at 19/04/10 @ 17:32

  • ChuckNorris #116 2 years ago

    Jesus fucking christ, could you two just stfu! I have both consoles and they are both just as likely to bash your mouths in if used properly.

  • amiga_dude #117 2 years ago

    Must missed that as well.

    There isn't any connection between way you comment and use of Live?
    Edited by amiga_dude at 19/04/10 @ 17:41

  • Doctor_What #118 2 years ago

    If ChuckNorris says he's going to kill you, you had better listen.

    Xbox does blah in 1231pi, but the PS3 has twice the bodum ling 433 resolution, therefore everything you all say is wrong because you don't agree with me.

    Sheesh, give it a rest. They're just bloody games machines. I like playing games on them. Games are fun aren't they? Remember 'fun'?

  • mkreku #119 2 years ago

    I'm not a huge online gamer, but I've used the PS3 for Battlefield 1943, Uncharted 2 MP and Demon's Souls. I pressed "Quick match" in Battlefield 1943 and I was playing within 10 seconds. I chose MP match in Uncharted 2 and I was playing within 10 seconds. In Demon's Souls, I just started the game and some red dude was killing me. That is really all I need from an online service. No fees, no trouble, just game.

  • amiga_dude #120 2 years ago

    I wouldn't be so foolish to argue with Chuck Norris he worked with master Burce Lee.

    Now who is better Burce Lee or Chuck Norris?

    PS Me duck for cover

  • juuken #121 2 years ago

    And Eurgamer fails again.

  • ChuckNorris #122 2 years ago

    Teh, you are not exactly role-model material either. At least not when it comes to avoiding spamming a thread with a lot of horseshit.

  • amiga_dude #123 2 years ago

    Sorry but it not for you to tell me to do anything. I have not once told you do anything but where says it not upscalling a game tell it name. I see that as a fare comment tying to understand why think something.

    As for your reply to my comment about
    "To isn't any connection between way you comment and use of Live?"

    I am so sorry if I touch a nerve.

    I just do not have to be rude and decorative to comment.

  • amiga_dude #124 2 years ago

    If at any point I have upset anyone on this site then I sincerely apologies for my behaver.

  • sfp_noodle #125 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    in the time uve spent on ur computer bashing sony/kissing MS, ive gone to town, seen my girlfriend, had an awesome lunch and bought some snazzy new clothes. get out once in a while. might do u some good ;)

  • sfp_noodle #126 2 years ago

    ^^

    im sure theres a reason why even the MS fanboys are neg repping u

  • sfp_noodle #127 2 years ago

    if u relly are from the 80s then i do worry for u my friend. anyway, im done with u, enjoy refreshing this page to see if someone has said anything remotely constructive about sony or MS. adios

  • coolbritannia #128 2 years ago

    Wherever the PS3 and 360 go head to head, Goodfella will be there. As sure as eggs is eggs.

  • makeamazing #129 2 years ago

    Cant believe this conversation has been going on all day.... This is one of the reasons i really dislike fanboys... they just cannot stop sprouting crap, seriously... Teh, go and use the service you like... and everyone else will use the service they prefer. See how easy that is...

  • Goodfella #130 2 years ago

    @coolbrittania

    You act like I've been spamming this thread with anti 360/pro PS3 propaganda. I made one comment regarding teh9182 and his mission and one comment on the villageidiot making a massive exaggeration.
    Edited by Goodfella at 19/04/10 @ 19:02

  • chubster2010 #131 2 years ago

    Wow....this is still going!?!?! Amazing.

    Right...off to play some games then...

  • M_of_the_sys #132 2 years ago

    "Sheesh, give it a rest. They're just bloody games machines. I like playing games on them. Games are fun aren't they? Remember 'fun'?"

    Careful mate. You could get lynched for that kinda talk around here.

    This comments section is totally derailed. The conversation, for lack of a better word, was originally about a paid for online service vs a free online service and how they're not comparable. Some people like one, some like the other. Some see the extras offered as worth their money and some see it as not worth their money. Everyone has their different OPINIONS!

    It's all about what you want out of a service. Nothing to do with TV licences. Nothing to do with 1080p and upscaling. Nothing to do with USB devices and EVERYTHING to do with listening to ChuckNorris when he warns you as he's often not so kind. :p

    Judging by this comments section, perhaps they're not comparable.

  • M_of_the_sys #133 2 years ago

    "Opinion is irrelevant. It's a fact that Live is better than PSN in multiple ways."

    My point was, that people have their own opinions regarding what they want out of a service. Some people love the options on the x-box and it's very beneficial to them. Others don't or don't think they considering the majority have never tried it out. But that's the point, if your own opinion is "I'm never gonna use them" then you're not gonna fork out the money for Live. For those that do use them, they're not going to pick a free service lacking the features they use.

    The fact may very well be that Live is superior, but why would someone not going to use them care? Opinions matter A LOT to MS and Sony as that's what people use to judge whether they're going to pick one service over another.

    I'm not going to argue the facts as I don't have an xbox. All I can do is take people's word for it. I'm one of the "Will probably never use it. What I have does me." blokes...

  • Goodfella #134 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    I was referring to the person called 'villageidiot' on the first page. If the cap fits though...

    Why are you so vehemently defensive of the 360? You've spent an excessive amount of time today posting what can only be described as rabid protectiveness.

    I think we all understand you love what MS provides for your online needs, frankly most of us couldn't give a shit. I have a 360 and a PS3, I use the 360 for Rock Band and never talk on it (most people don't - no need really), I use the PS3 for Modern Warfare 2 and talk to my mates, it does a great job of it and that's all I care about.

    To simplify, I don't give a toss about cross game chat etc, a lot of people don't, a lot of people do, those who care play on Live, those who don't use the PSN, for free, ans Sony will proably introduce a premium service for those who want all the extras. Microsoft however, do not offer that option.

  • Goodfella #135 2 years ago

    Yet again?

    I've made one direct post towards you because I felt your inane drivel required a response.

    It's clear I'm dealing with someone who has literally nothing better to do than make provocative remarks, why? I have no idea.

    Nighty night.

  • FuzzyDuck #136 2 years ago

    I'm curious to know if the state of PSN/XBL actually had an impact on peoples' feelings on what console to go with? PSN was a nice wee suprise for me - it's inferior to XBL, but as a free service it does quite nicely.

    @teh9182

    I'm suprised you actually have friends to play with on Live. Stop eating massive bags of Skittles in one go and relaaaxxxx....

  • alcides #137 2 years ago

    Vidzone.

    for hours on end

  • aphexstwin #138 2 years ago

    @tit9182 - i skipped a hundred comments because of your rabid comments, just to see more at the end, still all negged. but get this: we know you dont like psn, and we are ok with this. so calm the fuck down.

    i have both, psn being free is awesome for gaming, live is the only platform outside of mmo's that comes to mind, where online play costs money, and thats wrong imo.

    to nitpick at ms, i would say that for all their spiel about 'community' and 'connectivity with friends', i find it funny that the first thing you see on 360 dash boot-up is the section where it tries to advertise stuff -'spotlight'. always thinking of the green eh, ms?

    the thing i am amazed by in these comments is the actual popularity of psn, if this 'news' had come out 18-24 months ago, i'd imagine a bloodbath in here, but give sony credit, they have got the best part about online gaming right: it works, and works as well as the direct competition

  • dbranchevans #139 2 years ago

    @aphexstwin: Well said! Ones free and ones not and the free one works perfectly well albeit a little basic. Teh 9182 you've just taken up half the f*****g posts on this message board arguing about something only you seem to give a passionate shit about. Xbox has better multiplatform games and with a few exceptions (eg Mass Effect 2) Sony has better exclusives although Halo Reach may cause me to eat my words on the last statement, curse its shiny looks...!

  • Sunyavadin #140 2 years ago

    Seriously MS, there's nothing to defend here. The data was unrepresentative at best.

    It's like if a survey of 100 ferrari owners and 100 ford owners showed that 70% of ferrari owners picked the kids up from school in their car but only 50% of ford owners did. That still means about a billion more ford owners picking their kids up in their car.

    MS would have looked a lot better if they'd ignored this crap completely and let the facts speak for themselves.

  • Doctor_What #141 2 years ago

    Farty: it's mostly getting people annoyed because he says things like 'Live is quantifiably better than PSN'. The word 'better' is a value judgement - I rate things as being good and bad based on what I want from them, so my opinion on what is 'better' is different from his.

    Saying something is 'better' is an opinion, and that's fine, saying that a whole service with a range of features that doesn't appeal to everyone is quantifiably 'better' is silly. Cross game chat only makes one service better than another one if you could actually give a toss about it.

    Then, and this is the real crux of the problem, Teh calls people who disagree with him a moron, and idiot, or unintelligent purely on the basis that we don't accept that a better-but-paid-for service must necessarily be superior to a free-but-pared-down service.

    Teh is absolutely right: Live has more functions, is more slick, and for dedicated online players is probably better; however, he then proceeds to insult people who believe that it might be better to save £30 a year and using a very decent (though not as slick) free alternative.

    If it weren't for the insults to people who disagree with him then there might be less posts saying 'calm down' and neg votes going on. I don't neg for opinions, I neg for insults.

    PSN for me is quantifiably better based purely on the point that I have £30 more each year to spend on games, but I don't take online chat facilities as an important aspect of my gaming experience. I am quantifying my opinion based on my bank balance, not on the functions of the Live or PSN networks.

    @ Teh: PSN does absolutely everything I want it to for free, Live does not. Do you accept that this makes PSN better for me?
    Edited by Doctor_What at 20/04/10 @ 09:27

  • Doctor_What #142 2 years ago

    I think several people on the thread managed to do that by resorting to name calling and insults.

    I do also own a calibratable opinionometer. I have the patents and everything. I've called it the 'Edge Calibratable Opinionometer' just to see if I can get sued :D

  • Spekingur #143 2 years ago

    What MS should have said: "These numbers from this particular survey are not accurate. They are only guesses based on a limited amount of people that might or might not represent our userbase. For actual numbers we would like to rely on real data steaming hot from the servers. Also, rock on! Where is my Subway?"

  • bigtechno #144 2 years ago

    Well I have both and if I am going to buy a multi-format game that is on-line (like battlefield,call of duty) then it is always on the xbox as it just works where PS3 is always needing updates to fix issues

    In fact most multi-format games I get on xbox as your vs batlles show they are just better on xbox

  • onyxbox #145 2 years ago

    ^^^ what a load of bollocks.

  • iamtheoneneo #146 2 years ago

    xbl over psn anyday, i have both and for the £5 a month the xbl service is more then worth it. the whole point of going online is to feel part of a community with psn you dont get that at all, whereas xbl makes every attempt to let you know whats going on and whos playing what etc etc...

  • M_of_the_sys #147 2 years ago

    Erm... psn let's you know who's playing what. Not sure about etc etc though.

  • fknetwork #148 2 years ago

    If mc d's did an online service it would be the psn, it fills the hole but is nothing special

  • vizzini #149 2 years ago

    I own both systems and feel that PSN & XBL is like comparing our British NHS health service, to the US' private health care system.

    Naturally I'm a believer of social fairness in a capitalist world; like how I perceive PSN, so whether you have been made redundant or gainfully employed, you are still included in the system.

    Yes XBL does a few things better, but the discriminatory nature of Live Gold or subscription TV feels very non-British to me. They are too, ultra-capitalist for my view, like the “American Dream”, which has made Microsoft the company they are.

    Barack Obama has been trying to convince many people towards an NHS styled system for America's health service. So I'm guessing he probably uses a PC or PSN to play online.

  • fknetwork #150 2 years ago

    @vizzini
    You really are strange.....