AfterDawn: Tech news

Microsoft likely to raise Xbox Live price, says Pachter

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 19 Oct 2009 13:58 User comments (76)

Microsoft likely to raise Xbox Live price, says Pachter Wedbush Morgan videogame industry analyst Michael Pachter has made some more interesting comments this week on GameTrailer's Bonus Round, stating that Microsoft is ready to move on from PC gaming, and that the company will eventually raise the price of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions.
"Microsoft wants you to never play a game again on your PC and play everything on your 360," says Pachter. "You give a PC gamer an incentive to buy a 360 if you put something that he really wants only on the 360."

Why would Microsoft want to kill off its still popular PC platform?

"You can't hook a guy into Xbox Live Gold if he's playing on PC. So, I mean, that's the other problem is you really wanna hook every gamer who has a 360, you want them to buy all their games on 360, play everything multiplayer, pay you 50 bucks a year so that in a couple years, it's 100 bucks a year. And that's going up -- we all know that," Pachter declares, via 1up.

The real question may be how Microsoft can justify the price hike in light of rivals keeping online play free (PSN, Wii). More exclusive content coming?

Previous Next  

76 user comments

119.10.2009 14:51

I like xbox live so much better than PlayStation network but if we see an xbox live price hike then Sony had better get more consoles ready. I can't see a price cut coming from Microsoft, that would be a terrible financial decision. The price is perfect where it is. They will need some damn good justification for this. I just can't see anyone paying any more for xbox live service. This guy is just trying to make a lucky guess. Nobody has any idea what Microsoft will do, no matter how much of an analyst you are.

219.10.2009 15:15

I would think that they would be lowering the price or make it free like the Wii and PS3. I have not played the Wii online, but with the PS3 and 360, once you are playing the game there is no diference to justify a price. Much less an increase.

319.10.2009 15:49

Originally posted by glassd:
with the PS3 and 360, once you are playing the game there is no diference to justify a price. Much less an increase.
That's what I say. How can someone like Live! over the PlayStation Network? they are the same exact thing.

419.10.2009 15:59

They both have their own benifits but I think that I am in the majority that just wants to play online against others. If one service could get people to stop shooting me, I would pay for that. I dont realy care what the market place or PS store page looks like or how they are layed out. No doubt, Live kicked PS2 online's butt and was worth the $. Now, not enough difference.

519.10.2009 16:27

If this does happen it looks like I'll be playing my 360 offline and my PS3 online. Like someone posted above the game doesn't have any difference, but I like Live's interface better then PSN.

619.10.2009 16:38

you would have to be and ID10T to raise the price on Live its already too much.

Shrinking your fan base and charging more for it, nah i think not.

719.10.2009 17:11

Quote:
Originally posted by glassd:
with the PS3 and 360, once you are playing the game there is no diference to justify a price. Much less an increase.
That's what I say. How can someone like Live! over the PlayStation Network? they are the same exact thing.

I have both and have played on both. Only difference I see is that more people have mics on XBL. Other than that, gameplay is the same.

819.10.2009 17:30

i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.

919.10.2009 18:04
atomicxl
Inactive

I think we should all remember that Pachter has zero affiliation with Microsoft. When he predicts sales and other things, he's at least basing it off of some current research and statistical trends. This seems to be him 100% blowing smoke out of his ass with no real factual basis at all.

1019.10.2009 20:02

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens. I suppose I'll just have to play my 360 offline and use PSN to go online.

1119.10.2009 20:18

i would have a great difficulty wanting to pay for LIVE.
they (microsoft) already is making live gold suscriptions almost needed. so u get Demo's a week early and some discounts on DLC stuff.
but if they are gonna do a dick move by raising the price. they can keep it. i already pay 40 bux a month for internet. why should i dole out another 50 or whatever they wanna charge for multiplayer which should be free in the first place. FaceBook and Twitter are hardly worth the bother. anyone can update facebook from a Cell phone or the obvious Choice a Computer. so to hell with Msoft if they hike it up. its just not worth it to me. bad enough companies are so greedy they make everything where u have to buy 2 copies of a game and have 2 systems, 2 lcd tvs, 2 internet connections, or a home network. just to play against each other because making a split screen game doesn't sell copies. (i.e. driving games) im just sayin. don't be greedy Msoft. there is enough people out there that do not have a problem with the current prices. dont scare them away by raising the price.

1219.10.2009 20:33

Originally posted by atomicxl:
I think we should all remember that Pachter has zero affiliation with Microsoft. When he predicts sales and other things, he's at least basing it off of some current research and statistical trends. This seems to be him 100% blowing smoke out of his ass with no real factual basis at all.

Exactly, he has nothing to back it up.

1319.10.2009 23:51

Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.

1420.10.2009 0:02

Quote:
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.
Same here. I don't know why I have to pay for Xbox Live when PSN is just as satisfying to me and it's free. What's making me even more mad is that for like the past month, all I've been playing is GT5:P and now Demon's Souls (awesome game) and so my payed for Live subscription is going down the drain because I find the 360 line-up to be boring, and my console is modded so I can play whatever I want. Even Forza 3 doesn't excite me because I like playing with a steering wheel and Logitech just doesn't wanna support the 360 :(

1520.10.2009 0:08

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.
Same here. I don't know why I have to pay for Xbox Live when PSN is just as satisfying to me and it's free. What's making me even more mad is that for like the past month, all I've been playing is GT5:P and now Demon's Souls (awesome game) and so my payed for Live subscription is going down the drain because I find the 360 line-up to be boring, and my console is modded so I can play whatever I want. Even Forza 3 doesn't excite me because I like playing with a steering wheel and Logitech just doesn't wanna support the 360 :(

That's another thing with XBL. If I don't play I feel like I am wasting money for no reason. Kinda like a rental fee on a car or hotel where you pay for the entire day but are only there for the night.

1620.10.2009 0:33

What happens on the day of the price hike to everyone who just bought a year subscription? Is it still good. If so I will just buy more long term subscriptions. They probably have fine print that allows them to change rates to current subscribers at any time without warning though. I don't know.....just something to look in to .

1720.10.2009 1:39

Microsoft has been wanting to make tons more money via subscription fees for over a decade...even w/ Windows and Office, they've wanted to move to charging users a monthly subscription for using it rather than selling copies of it (zero initial cost to the user, but in the long term, a lot more $$$ to M$ than what the software currently sells for). They haven't figured out quite how to sell this idea, but they DO want to do it. Maybe XBL is their way of testing this idea???

1820.10.2009 1:55
fgamer
Inactive

Microsoft is a fool if they really think they can move PC gamers to Xbox only. There's still too many developers out there that will not abandon the PC gaming market anytime soon. And last I checked Microsoft doesn't make many PC games to begin with other than Flight Sims and...that's it. That's why they pushed the developers behind Alan Wake to make it a 360 exclusive, which from the get go was suppose to be PC only for the time being, now it's 360 only! Raising the price will not help them out...I already know people who can barely afford Xbox LIVE fees as it is...begging people for 24 hour trial and 1 months. That said, I'd more than likely pay up because LIVE beats PSN by far. Nobody on PSN has headsets for you to communicate..and 90% of people on Xbox LIVE have headsets. Plus the party system and the new features coming to the Xbox will make Xbox LIVE 20X better than PSN. And those saying PSN and Xbox LIVE are the same...stop smokin crack!!! PSN sucks and Xbox LIVE dominates. Free is not always the best.

1920.10.2009 3:00

Originally posted by fgamer:
Microsoft is a fool if they really think they can move PC gamers to Xbox only. There's still too many developers out there that will not abandon the PC gaming market anytime soon. And last I checked Microsoft doesn't make many PC games to begin with other than Flight Sims and...that's it. That's why they pushed the developers behind Alan Wake to make it a 360 exclusive, which from the get go was suppose to be PC only for the time being, now it's 360 only! Raising the price will not help them out...I already know people who can barely afford Xbox LIVE fees as it is...begging people for 24 hour trial and 1 months. That said, I'd more than likely pay up because LIVE beats PSN by far. Nobody on PSN has headsets for you to communicate..and 90% of people on Xbox LIVE have headsets. Plus the party system and the new features coming to the Xbox will make Xbox LIVE 20X better than PSN. And those saying PSN and Xbox LIVE are the same...stop smokin crack!!! PSN sucks and Xbox LIVE dominates. Free is not always the best.
Except that a very large portion of that 90% w/ headsets are annoying little 12-14yo dweebs that kinda ruin the experience.

2020.10.2009 3:03

Pachters a moron, I don't get why sites continue to post his bs.

2120.10.2009 3:40
chris4160
Inactive

Originally posted by Morreale:
Even Forza 3 doesn't excite me because I like playing with a steering wheel and Logitech just doesn't wanna support the 360
What's wrong with microsoft's racing wheel???

Quote:
Pachters a moron, I don't get why sites continue to post his bs.
Agreed, this story is full of speculation, it is not news.

I'm not going to even bother to respond to any of the comments about psn being as good as xbox live.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 3:47

2220.10.2009 4:25

I don't care if he is an expert on guess or this type of crap, if you think taking away PC games from pc gamers and make them get 360 is like taking a baby's toy away from the baby, that baby is not going to be a very happy baby. Yea, I love xbox live, great multiplayer, but i also know many of my friends who LOVES pc games and rather play that over a 360.

2320.10.2009 6:37

I never play my xbox online, i think it's F****D up that you have to pay for the games, pay to play online and pay for all extra stuff for the game online... Just another example that microsoft can and will screw you out of your money. :(

2420.10.2009 8:02

Quote:
Originally posted by atomicxl:
I think we should all remember that Pachter has zero affiliation with Microsoft. When he predicts sales and other things, he's at least basing it off of some current research and statistical trends. This seems to be him 100% blowing smoke out of his ass with no real factual basis at all.

Exactly, he has nothing to back it up.
I'll 3rd that. Where does he get this info from?

2520.10.2009 8:23

Quote:
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.



I feel like you are attacking my post but i don't understand why? but if you feel they are the same that's fine by me i don't care if you are upset about the fee for live just don't pay it and move on.

2620.10.2009 8:30

Well all looks like your hooked. This is pure speculation, and has resulted in a lot of free advertising for him.

Stop taking the bait AD

2720.10.2009 8:56

Originally posted by jookycola:
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.

I own both and the differences are pretty obvious. Live has the following that PSN does not: -

1. Cross-game chat
2. 6 communication channels that you can switch between at any time
3. A party mode for up to 8 players
4. A proper invites/join system that actually works
5. Private voice chat
6. Voice messaging
7. A reputation system to easily ignore/prefer other players globally
8. Neflix streaming (if you live in the US)
9. A reporting system for reporting abuse via the console
10. Demos of every single downloadable game and far more downloadable games to choose from
11. You can see what games your friends are playing and exactly what they are doing in the game
12. You can access high score leaderboards though the dashboard without even having to start the game
13. Windows Live Messenger support, so you can chat to anyone using a device capable of running that
14. The 1 Vs. 100 game with real prizes
15. The ability to create your own games with XNA Games Studio and submit them for sale on Live
16. DLC that's cheaper than it is on PSN and available earlier
17. The ability to log in with more than one gamertag at a time and use more than one headset at a time online
18. Inside Xbox
19. The ability to join a session in progress (game specific on PSN)

And soon Live will have full Twitter, Last.fm and Facebook integration, Sky TV available (in the UK only I think) and full 1080p instant streaming video rentals via Zune Video Marketplace.

It's also how seamless Live is compared to PSN. For example, Killzone 2 had to get a patch just so you could invite people from your friends list to play a game. In Operation Flashpoint on the PS3 you have to type in your friends PSN ID in order to invite them. It's much easier to communicate on Live as you have far more options, it's easier to set up multiplayer games and get into them, Live has more content, DLC, downloadable games (all with demos). PSN is bare bones in comparison. It gives you basic online play and if you're lucky, open voice chat that works, although hardly anyone talks when I go into multiplayer games on my PS3, probably because Sony don't bundle a mic in with the console.

Anyway, to say they're both the same is total rubbish!

2820.10.2009 9:03

i agree 100%.

2920.10.2009 9:18

Xbox Live has a great range of features, but what I like about it is the consistency. You never think "oh, this game doesn't have that", cos everything works in the same way from game to game. On the PS3 there are still games without trophies. There are older titles with online multiplayer that don't even have voice chat. Also, the party chat is a big plus on the 360, cos if you're in a racing game with friends for example, where you don't have to communicate as a team in order to play the game (like you might do with a shooter), you can chat, swear, have a laugh - you can do what you like without bothering any of the other players. Cross-game chat is awesome too, cos if I'm in a single player game and a mate comes online, I can instantly chat to him no matter what he's doing. Also, if your mates are in a party, you can just highlight the party and press a single button to join it, then you're all chatting together and you can move from game to game and stay as a group.

Another plus that Live has is game patches. They download in seconds and there's only ever 1 to download - the latest patch. Sometimes you buy a PS3 game after it's been out for a while, put it in, sit through the forced install, and then you're prompted to download multiple patches that can add up to a couple of hundred MB and PSN can be slow as shit sometimes.

Anyways, I can't believe that anyone who has used both systems for a decent amount of time would say that PSN and Live are the same. PSN has improved since the PS3 first came out, but it's still lagging way behind Xbox Live and even if they add features like cross-game chat and so on, they're going to need to make them work in the same seamless way that they work on Live.

As for the thread title, Pachter is always making crazy predictions. Natal launching at $50 because it's "just a camera" was his last one, even though it contains a processor and so on, yet he thinks Sony's wand will cost twice as much. He also said that this will be the last generation of games console on an episode of the Bonus Round on GametrailersTV. It seems like it's quite easy to be a video games analyst. I wouldn't mind getting paid just to make things up and hope they come true!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:20

3020.10.2009 9:23

I'm not sure about other markets, but Microsoft has been blasting away the "XBOX Live for only $3.00 a month" (or something similar) everywhere lately, would seem to be a bad marketing campaign if there was a plan to up it, making all those ads obsolete.

3120.10.2009 9:44

I could see MS offering a subscription with more bells and whistles than gold. While the idea of "not" upgrading to the next tier would be fine for most users, others would fall victim to a barrage of advertising schemes. Eventually a gold subscription would be known as the middle ground kind of like a pro console.

The same people who claim the elite is superior to the pro "because it's black" and has double the hard drive space will snatch up the new service and an endless barrage of mine is better than yours "because" will ensue.

MS isn't going to force anyone to upgrade they are going to let you upgrade if you want... the chattering tweens will sell this new service for MS.

3220.10.2009 9:46

Quote:
Originally posted by jookycola:
Originally posted by Se7ven:

1. Cross-game chat
2. 6 communication channels that you can switch between at any time
3. A party mode for up to 8 players
4. A proper invites/join system that actually works
5. Private voice chat
6. Voice messaging
7. A reputation system to easily ignore/prefer other players globally
8. Neflix streaming (if you live in the US)
9. A reporting system for reporting abuse via the console
10. Demos of every single downloadable game and far more downloadable games to choose from
11. You can see what games your friends are playing and exactly what they are doing in the game
12. You can access high score leaderboards though the dashboard without even having to start the game
13. Windows Live Messenger support, so you can chat to anyone using a device capable of running that
14. The 1 Vs. 100 game with real prizes
15. The ability to create your own games with XNA Games Studio and submit them for sale on Live
16. DLC that's cheaper than it is on PSN and available earlier
17. The ability to log in with more than one gamertag at a time and use more than one headset at a time online
18. Inside Xbox
19. The ability to join a session in progress (game specific on PSN)
[b]

1. Agreed but a firmware update should allow it on PSN though it should have already been included.
2 & 3. I don't know what those are, haven't used it
4. If it doesn't work for you then there's something wrong. Works fine for me and everyone I talk to and play with.
5. PSN has it
6. Agreed
7. PSN has trophies but gamerscore IS easier to see
8. PSN has it's own video service which works fine, brand names don't matter.
9. I think PSN has it but not too sure, agreed though.
10. Agreed but PSN has a lot of PS1 games to choose from, not to mention the backwards compatibility to PS1 is included on ALL consoles
11 - 15. Agreed
16. Available earlier? Maybe but cheaper? PSN has it in money and MS has it in points. Convert it and it's the same.
17 - 19. Agreed.

I still can't see myself paying $50/year for XBL. I'm not a hardcore gamer, just want to play COD here and there.

3320.10.2009 10:00

Funksoulb, I in no way meant to offend you by saying that they both have their benefits. Some of the things that you list, the psn can do, some it cant. Most points can be argued. I did have XBL but no longer do. Not because of the $50. At the time I did not mind paying it. I just believe that I am in the majority that plays online with games like COD MW. There is no difference online between the two. MS or Sony does not hoist the games. XBL and PSN do not prevent Lag or contribute to Lag in games. All of the other stuff that XBL and PSN offer does not persuade me one way or the other. To say that they are the Same in all aspects would not be correct. To say that they are the same on what matters would be. (for me)

Once again, I don’t thing Patcher knows what he is talking about. He makes crazy predictions all of the time. Like Nostradamus, if you make enough predictions; you will be correct sometimes.

3420.10.2009 10:07

Quote:
Originally posted by jookycola:
Originally posted by Se7ven:
i can't see paying more than the 50 USD per year i own both and i can say that live is a better service,dont get me wrong PSN is good but live is better. you really get what you pay for.but with that being said even i would stop playing live if they hike the price.
A better service? Please explain. How is Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing, and perform just as well? Do you own both or are you just a Live Subscriber making a one sided observation? I own both and i don't see a difference in performance at all. Only i can see is, one i'm paying for and one i'm not. Do you think just because you pay for Live you are automatically getting a better service? Just curious.

I own both and the differences are pretty obvious. Live has the following that PSN does not: -

1. Cross-game chat
2. 6 communication channels that you can switch between at any time
3. A party mode for up to 8 players
4. A proper invites/join system that actually works
5. Private voice chat
6. Voice messaging
7. A reputation system to easily ignore/prefer other players globally
8. Neflix streaming (if you live in the US)
9. A reporting system for reporting abuse via the console
10. Demos of every single downloadable game and far more downloadable games to choose from
11. You can see what games your friends are playing and exactly what they are doing in the game
12. You can access high score leaderboards though the dashboard without even having to start the game
13. Windows Live Messenger support, so you can chat to anyone using a device capable of running that
14. The 1 Vs. 100 game with real prizes
15. The ability to create your own games with XNA Games Studio and submit them for sale on Live
16. DLC that's cheaper than it is on PSN and available earlier
17. The ability to log in with more than one gamertag at a time and use more than one headset at a time online
18. Inside Xbox
19. The ability to join a session in progress (game specific on PSN)

And soon Live will have full Twitter, Last.fm and Facebook integration, Sky TV available (in the UK only I think) and full 1080p instant streaming video rentals via Zune Video Marketplace.

It's also how seamless Live is compared to PSN. For example, Killzone 2 had to get a patch just so you could invite people from your friends list to play a game. In Operation Flashpoint on the PS3 you have to type in your friends PSN ID in order to invite them. It's much easier to communicate on Live as you have far more options, it's easier to set up multiplayer games and get into them, Live has more content, DLC, downloadable games (all with demos). PSN is bare bones in comparison. It gives you basic online play and if you're lucky, open voice chat that works, although hardly anyone talks when I go into multiplayer games on my PS3, probably because Sony don't bundle a mic in with the console.

Anyway, to say they're both the same is total rubbish!
Most of those features that you mention, the PS3 doesn't have them because of stupid Developers like EA, not Sony. PS3's system is more integrated with games where as the 360 is seperated, which is why (example) the ingame XMB doesn't work with like 5% of games because it can't satisfy every single game. It's the developer's job to implement these things, and if they don't it's tough luck for us.

If 360 has a demo of a game, so does the PS3, no? Demos are a waste of space anyways, especially on the 360 (my 20GB hdd has I think less then 1GB left with two games installed to it). PSN also has video services so that doesn't really matter. Twitter, Facebook, (I don't know about last.fm) that's what the web browser is for. PS3 also has Youtube, even Afterdawn through the web browser lol

3520.10.2009 10:28

Originally posted by glassd:
Funksoulb, I in no way meant to offend you by saying that they both have their benefits. Some of the things that you list, the psn can do, some it cant.

PSN can't do any of the things I listed. I've owned a PS3 and 360 for a long time, so I know what they're both capable of.

Originally posted by Morreale:
Most of those features that you mention, the PS3 doesn't have them because of stupid Developers like EA, not Sony.

And you know this, how? Because of some dumb rumour started by an anonymous poster on N4G's forums! If Sony had implemented the features from the start and told developers that they had to be in games, then PSN might be close to where Live is at now.

Quote:
If 360 has a demo of a game, so does the PS3, no?

No. The 360 literally has a demo for every downloadable game, because they're mandatory. They have to be released on the day the full game is available too. Less than a third of the downloadable games on PSN have demos and sometimes you have to wait a few weeks before a demo comes out (the Fat Princess demo, for example). That's why I spend more money on games downloaded from Live - because I can always try them first.


Quote:
Twitter, Facebook, (I don't know about last.fm) that's what the web browser is for.

But those services are not integrated. You have to fire up a separate browser application, browse to the sites, then exit the application again. This is from Joystiq's preview of the upcoming dashboard update on the 360, regarding how Facebook works: -

Quote:
The most surprisingly well-executed addition to the Xbox experience comes through Facebook. Critics are quick to point out that Facebook can be accessed readily from almost any other device, whether it be a mobile phone or a PC. While much of Facebook's core functionality is replicated on the Xbox, Microsoft's app significantly streamlines and improves the experience, especially when browsing photo albums. Whereas the dot com site is plagued by a sluggish AJAX design, the Xbox app loads photos and galleries instantly, making it much faster and easier to browse through your friend's pics. On the Facebook website, you'll see ads clutter the screen as you browse individual photos. On the Xbox, however, each photo gets the full-screen treatment, with captions minimally presented at the top of the screen. For those that use Facebook as their primary way of sharing photos, using an Xbox will be hands-down the best way of presenting them.

If I want to browse sites using a web browser, I'll just do it from my PC.

3620.10.2009 10:39

Originally posted by core2kid:
4. If it doesn't work for you then there's something wrong. Works fine for me and everyone I talk to and play with.

I'm talking about consistency. I don't want to have to wait for games to be patched, just so I have the ability to invite people from my own friends list (as in Killzone 2) and I don't want to have to type in a PSN ID manually to invite someone (as in Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising).

Quote:
5. PSN has it

So if we're both playing an online multiplayer game, I can open a private voice channel to you that's separate from the game's voice chat channel and I can switch between them whenever I like? I can do this even if we're playing different games? PSN doesn't have those features mate.

Quote:
8. PSN has it's own video service which works fine, brand names don't matter.

Not in the UK it doesn't. Even when we get the video store later this year (supposedly) there will be no full 1080p instant streaming videos like there will be on Live after the next update. You have to download the full movie first. The 360 has had a regular store where you can download movies for years.

Quote:
10. Agreed but PSN has a lot of PS1 games to choose from, not to mention the backwards compatibility to PS1 is included on ALL consoles

Xbox Live has Xbox games to choose from. Backwards compatibility with last-gen games is available on all 360s. If you buy a PS3 now, the only backwards compatibility you get is with games from 2 generations ago. Xbox Live also has a store section for user-created indie games and for full Xbox 360 titles. The PS3 has no such equivalents, although it does have 1 or two full PS3 titles for download (Burnout, for example).

Quote:
16. Available earlier? Maybe but cheaper? PSN has it in money and MS has it in points. Convert it and it's the same.

Here's a couple of examples.

Call of Duty WAW Map packs 1-3: -

PSN - £7.99 each
Live - 800 MS Points each (£6.80 if bought through Live and as cheap as £5.70 if you buy a pre-paid card)

Big Surf Island add-on for Burnout Paradise: -

PSN - £9.99
Live - 1,000 MS Points (£8.50 if bought through Live)

Pretty much any 800 MS Point (£6.80) game or piece of content is £7.99 on PSN. If you buy pre-paid cards for the 360, you can get 2100 points for about £15 which makes an 800 point game or piece of DLC £5.70, which is £2.29 cheaper than PSN. If you buy lots of DLC and games, as I do, then the price difference between PSN and Live actually negates the 50p a week cost of Live. I bought all 3 COD:WAW map packs and saved about £6.50 on the PSN prices, which is enough to pay for 3 months of Xbox Live Gold.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:58

3720.10.2009 10:49

Not a single thing listed remotely matters to me. I did not use them when i had XBL and will not use them when the PSN gets them. I just want to be able to play online and talk to the team that i am playing with. I can do that on both systems.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:50

3820.10.2009 10:54

Originally posted by glassd:
Not a single thing listed remotely matters to me. I did not use them when i had XBL and will not use them when the PSN gets them. I just want to be able to play online and talk to the team that i am playing with. I can do that on both systems.

The claim I was responding to was that there is no difference between the two services. There's a big difference, whether you take advantage of those features or not. All PSN gives you in terms of online multiplayer is a fairly patchy invites system and open voice chat in the games that actually have voice chat (several older online multiplayer games don't). If that's all you need, then fine, but that doesn't make both services the same.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:57

3920.10.2009 11:20

We definitely agree that they are not the same. XBL does offer more. The MORE just does not matter to me. The PS3 offers the things that I want for free. Yes, some old PS3 games did not have voice chat. Does not mater any more as we are playing new games with the exception of COD MW, I still play that. XBL was definitely worth the $50 before PS3 came along because we had no choice but to pay for it. There just is not enough difference between online to justify a cost. XBL was great, I shot at people and missed, people shot at me and hit me. Same thing happens on PSN.

4020.10.2009 12:55

Quote:
1. Cross-game chat
- I can get an e-mail if I care to talk to someone from another game. My choice to ignore it and keep playing what I am playing if I so choose rather than be disturbed by another call.

2. 6 communication channels that you can switch between at any time
- Same as above

3. A party mode for up to 8 players
- Not sure what this matters, it's not an XBL feature and that's what we're talking about here. PS3 supports 4 players. And 270+ online at the same time, on the same screen with the new game MAG. Might want to check it out before bragging about 8 player co-op.

4. A proper invites/join system that actually works
-The PSN invite system works...I have no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to elaborate. This is a worthless misinformed jab.

5. Private voice chat
- PSN allows you to video, voice, and text chat. PSN makes up for it with private video chat. And Party Video chat for up to 6 people, you can even video chat with a $5 eye toy from your PS2 if you want. So sorry, if it's so advanced that it's past voice chat. And you CAN voice chat on PS3 just enter the chat room with a Bluetooth headset and no webcam and you’ll be heard, not seen.. Just another pointless misinformed jab.

6. Voice messaging
- I have a phone for that….pointless misinformed jab.

7. A reputation system to easily ignore/prefer other players globally
- PSN has this too…. pointless misinformed jab. What are we up to 5 of these so far?

8. Neflix streaming (if you live in the US)
- PS3 owners have Netflix too, it's called Blu-Ray rentals. Netflix IS NOT free on XBL. You not only have to pay for a Netflix subscription, you also have to pay your $50 subscription to XBL to enjoy the streaming movies. And they are not even HD. So in the end you may have Netflix streaming movies and believe that is better than PSN...but you're also paying double for the service and not even getting HD quality. Fail.
So far a semi pointless misinformed jab. But since you’re paying double for less features here I’ll let you off lightly. PSN also allows you to rent or buy 1080p HD movies via download.

9. A reporting system for reporting abuse via the console
- PSN has this it's called Block. It's pretty simple you just hit the block icon. Is that so difficult? Just another huge pointless misinformed FAIL.

10. Demos of every single downloadable game and far more downloadable games to choose from
- I’ll give you this, you might have that beat, but I have not personally counted how many games either has. I doubt you have either, so really that's more speculation than truth. But Xbox has been around a bit longer so I’ll let you have that.

11. You can see what games your friends are playing and exactly what they are doing in the game
- PSN does that too. Yet again another pointless misinformed jab

12. You can access high score leaderboards though the dashboard without even having to start the game
- I don't care about this feature even on my own 360. i can see where my friends are so that's all i care about.

13. Windows Live Messenger support, so you can chat to anyone using a device capable of running that.
- And really? how many times have you seriously used this? And really? how many devices support it? Exactly. MSN messenger was the first thing i deleted off my PC. It sucks everyone uses AIM or Yahoo anyway They are the industry standard. A MEGA fail. Almost not even worth listing.

14. The 1 Vs. 100 game with real prizes.
- Don't care. Does this help my copy of Call of Duty play better on Live than it does on PSN? I believe this is the question I asked in my first post. What makes Live better than PSN when they do the same exact thing. This is a game, not a network perk, and it’s only for those who care to play it. That does not make the Live “Network” better than the PS “Network”

15. The ability to create your own games with XNA Games Studio and submit them for sale on Live
- Again don't care, that’s a games argument, not a “network is better because” argument. This does not help my copy of Call of Duty play better on Live than it does on PSN…so…yeah, a we bit of pointless-ness.

16. DLC that's cheaper than it is on PSN and available earlier
- Not true, and not always.
My suggestion here is know more about console specs and the business before you make such pointless misinformed jabs. Cross platform games are developed faster for 360 since the 360 is just Xbox 1 pumped up. So the Dev kit is pretty much the same familiar kit they’ve been using for a decade. And since they run at 720p they usually make the 360 game first then make additional graphical improvment tweaks to the games so it can take advantage of PS3’s 1080 native rez. So yeah the game comes out first on 360 because it’s not as advanced. I'm not sure I'd want to brag about that.

17. The ability to log in with more than one gamertag at a time and use more than one headset at a time online
- Seriously, who does this? And how does this make my copy of prototype run better on Live than it does on PSN? next.

18. Inside Xbox
-PlayStaion Qore. Next.

19. The ability to join a session in progress (game specific on PSN)
- Um, yeah...that's game specific on XBL too...otherwise, how would you access the game already in session? Again worthless line of misinformation.

...It's also how seamless Live is compared to PSN.
- that's one sided opinion not fact. Both are very seamless.

...For example, Killzone 2 had to get a patch just so you could invite people from your friends list to play a game.
- So what you are saying is it's patched and works fine now. So what's the point of brining up a fault that doesn't exsist any longer?

...Anyway, to say they're both the same is total rubbish!
I'll tell you what is total rubbish...Your entire list.
It has 1 or maybe 2 genuine improvements that matter. And neither is worth the $50 premium over the PSN. If you like all those little perks that you’ll probably never use. Fine. But when it comes to online experience I like to load my game go online and play my friends or people I never met and have it be a smooth and flawless experience. And like I said…and what you have not been able to debunk with this worthless bloated list. Is HOW Live is better than PSN when they do the same thing.

Claiming Live is better, and when asked how? Instead of explaining it you list ancillary things that mean nothing. or outdated complaints about games that have been long fixed and improved. Worthless features that do not improve GAME PLAY over another consoles network therefore validating the $50 premium over PSN. You didn’t answer my question, you listed me a worthless 360Live! commercial.

If you think paying $50 annually for ancillary things like download mini games, full games, demos, downloadable content, watch movies, Twitter, and Facebook integration is worth it then that’s fine, but you can do all those exact same things as well on the PSN for 100% free! And STILL won’t make the Live! “Network” do anything better than the PSN “Network”.

And a quick math lesson for you. With the Netflix streaming feature attached to your Live subscription you’re actually paying an additional $108 dollars or more depending on your plan.
$50 (XBL) + $108 (Netflix one out-at-a-time plan @ $9 a month, their cheapest plan)
$50 + $108 = $158 a year for a Xbox Live! Membership with streaming Netflix. So that is not an improvement in network just an expensive add-on.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 13:09

4120.10.2009 13:18

This is why I really didn't want to get into this conversation. Some PS3 fanboy will always come along and say "it doesn't have cross-game chat, but I can send an email which is just the same!" or "I have a phone to talk to people so why do I need voice chat!?" or "Inside Xbox is free and updated several times a week, while Qore costs money, is only available in America and isn't updated several times a week, but they're just the same!!". If they have no rebuttal to a particular point, they'll say "well I don't care about this feature anyway!!" as if that makes it pointless to every single person on the planet. LOL. It's always the same.

I know that there are plenty of PS3 owners capable of having sensible conversations and looking at the facts, but it's pathetic when certain fanboys have to use the most ridiculously flawed arguments just because they can't accept that one online system isn't as good as another. Haha! Your post was an amusing read, although you do sound rather angry about this whole issue and when you use terms like "MEGA FAIL", I just feel like I'm talking to some angst-ridden teenager. You just made yourself look like a fool by trying to write off all of Live's advantages over PSN.

Googling your name brings up some awesome fanboy comments, this one for example: -

Quote:
The New Xbox experience live is a rip off of home i hate to tell you. Home has been in development far longer than MS's cheap rip off.

LOL. Yeah, the 360 dashboard is just like HOME! You really know your stuff!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 13:36

4220.10.2009 13:33

I'm a PS3 fanboy? and I'm angry?
Explain that if you will. I'm interested in how you can read moods through text.
I own both systems and asked a very simple question...what makes one's network better?

I like when a valid question is asked to 360 FANBOYS, their only answer is that the person questioning them must be a PS3 fanboy starting sh*t. It was a very mature, "sensible" and valid question. And your reply just reinforces that I'm right. You want facts. and i provided them. Instead of accepting it you try to belittle me, label me a fanboy, and claim I'm angry about it. I could equally make arguments for the 360. But in this case it's not valid, they don't offer anything that makes their games run better online than Sony's service does for free.

Belittling me, calling me a fanboy and making excuses won't make your point more right. Notice i didn't need to belittle you to convey my message. That's called "mature conversation"

4320.10.2009 13:39

Originally posted by jookycola:
I'm a PS3 fanboy? and I'm angry?
Explain that if you will. I'm interested in how you can read moods through text.
I own both systems and asked a very simple question...what makes one's network better?

I like when a valid question is asked to 360 FANBOYS, their only answer is that the person questioning them must be a PS3 fanboy starting sh*t. It was a very mature, "sensible" and valid question. And your reply just reinforces that I'm right. You want facts. and i provided them. Instead of accepting it you try to belittle me, label me a fanboy, and claim I'm angry about it. I could equally make arguments for the 360. But in this case it's not valid, they don't offer anything that makes their games run better online than Sony's service does for free.

Belittling me, calling me a fanboy and making excuses won't make your point more right. Notice i didn't need to belittle you to convey my message. That's called "mature conversation"

What would be the point in responding to your childish and factually incorrect breakdown of the points I raised? Look at the desperate tone in your posts and the way you don't even understand the features you're discussing - the NXE/HOME comment above shows that, as does your comment about Live's party system, which is absolutely nothing to do with 8 player co-op. Whatever I say doesn't matter. You're not interested in facts. You're interested in desperately defending Sony, as you appear to do across a number of forums where you regularly troll about things you clearly know nothing about. LOL! PSN doesn't have a single one of the features I mentioned. Not a single one, and it doesn't matter how many times you respond or try and use email as a replacement for cross-game chat, or a phone as a replacement for voicemail messaging through Live, LOL, nothing will change that.

4420.10.2009 13:50

Quote:

What would be the point in responding to your childish and factually incorrect breakdown of the points I raised? Look at the desperate tone in your posts and the way you don't even understand the features you're discussing - the NXE/HOME comment above shows that, as does your comment about Live's party system, which is absolutely nothing to do with 8 player co-op. Whatever I say doesn't matter. You're not interested in facts. You're interested in desperately defending Sony, as you appear to do across a number of forums where you regularly troll about things you clearly know nothing about. LOL! PSN doesn't have a single one of the features I mentioned. Not a single one, and it doesn't matter how many times you respond or try and use email as a replacement for cross-game chat, or a phone as a replacement for voicemail messaging through Live, LOL, nothing will change that.

See, more belittling and personal attacks, and bringing in an quote from me from an entirely different thread from years ago that is not only out of context, but also has nothing to do with THIS topic.
You do know it's against forum rules to get off topic and go on a personal attack against someone. That rule is in place for people like you that can't have a mature conversation about a topic. And just post to attack peoples points and character.

Notice i don't need to edit my post to keep adding rubbish insults to it? That's because i don't need to insult you to make a point. You only prove me more right with every post you angrily peck out.

4520.10.2009 13:53

We could go on all day/week. You think Tweeter, cross chat, Netflix etc is great and worth paying for and use that as an excuse to Pay MS. I use the PS3 to play games on and off line. I covered. FOR FREE. I use the PS3 to watch UpScaled DVD’s, BluRay AND NETFLIX (streamed from the PC). PSN has Home with Chat and free games, XBL has nothing like it. I think all of this is great especially when it is FREE. We are not fanboys trying to justify paying for what others get for free. Just like us saying that we don’t care about twitter and creating games etc, you can say that you don’t care about Home, 1080p streamed movies etc… The difference is we get the service for free.

4620.10.2009 13:56

Nice rant funksoulb. Let's try maturity for a change.

So when I play Call of Duty: World at War on my PS3 online. How does the lack of:
8 player co-op
NXE
voicemail messaging
cross-game chat

Make my online game experience worse than if i had paid $50 to play it on my 360?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 13:58

4720.10.2009 13:59

Here's a response to your list in an earlier post: -

Quote:
1. Cross-game chat
- I can get an e-mail.......

So.........it doesn't have cross-game chat then! lol.

Quote:
2. 6 communication channels that you can switch between at any time
- Same as above

So it doesn't have this either!

Quote:
3. A party mode for up to 8 players
- Not sure what this matters, it's not an XBL feature and that's what we're talking about here. PS3 supports 4 players. And 270+ online at the same time, on the same screen with the new game MAG. Might want to check it out before bragging about 8 player co-op.

The party mode enables 8 people to join together as a group. It has nothing to do with co-op. The PS3 has no such equivalent, so it doesn't have this either!

Quote:
4. A proper invites/join system that actually works
-The PSN invite system works...I have no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to elaborate. This is a worthless misinformed jab.

I did elaborate. No games on Xbox Live have been released where you can't even invite a friend, like Killzone 2, and no games on Xbox Live require you to manually type in the name of the friend you want to invite, like Operation Flashpoint. Looks like you're wrong again!

Quote:
5. Private voice chat
- PSN allows you to video, voice, and text chat. PSN makes up for it with private video chat.

So......erm.....it doesn't have private voice chat then!

Quote:
6. Voice messaging
- I have a phone for that….pointless misinformed jab.

How am I misinformed? I said that Live has it and PSN doesn't. PSN doesn't which is why you have to use a phone. Wrong again! lol.

Quote:
7. A reputation system to easily ignore/prefer other players globally
- PSN has this too…. pointless misinformed jab. What are we up to 5 of these so far?

PSN does NOT have a reputation system. Wrong again.

Quote:
8. Neflix streaming (if you live in the US)
- PS3 owners have Netflix too, it's called Blu-Ray rentals.

I specifically said Netflix streaming. PSN doesn't have this. Wrong again.

Quote:
9. A reporting system for reporting abuse via the console
- PSN has this it's called Block.

Blocking a user clearly isn't the same as a system for reporting abusive players is it? Not very good at this debating thing are you? You can report abusive players on the PS3, but you can't do it through the console. You have to report it through Sony's website. Wrong again!

Quote:
10. Demos of every single downloadable game and far more downloadable games to choose from
- I’ll give you this

You should give me it, but then you should have given me all of the things on this list as PSN doesn't have any of them.

Quote:
11. You can see what games your friends are playing and exactly what they are doing in the game
- PSN does that too. Yet again another pointless misinformed jab

Actually, no it doesn't. It only tells you what game a person is playing. It doesn't say exactly what they're doing, for example "Playing GTAIV deathmatch with 17 minutes to go". Wrong again!

Quote:
12. You can access high score leaderboards though the dashboard without even having to start the game
- I don't care about this feature even on my own 360.

You may not care about it, but PSN doesn't have it. lol.

Quote:
14. The 1 Vs. 100 game with real prizes.
- Don't care.

Same as above.

Quote:
15. The ability to create your own games with XNA Games Studio and submit them for sale on Live
- Again don't care

Same as above.

Quote:
16. DLC that's cheaper than it is on PSN and available earlier
- Not true, and not always.

How can it be "not true" and "not always" both at the same time? I gave examples that prove my point. Wrong again!

Quote:
17. The ability to log in with more than one gamertag at a time and use more than one headset at a time online
- Seriously, who does this?

Me! If I'm playing with a mate who's in the room online, we can both log in with our own gamertags, so we can both earn achievements and we can both chat to the other people we're playing with. PSN doesn't have it though, so I can't do it on the PS3 as you can only log in with one ID at a time and use one mic. Wrong again.

Quote:
18. Inside Xbox
-PlayStaion Qore. Next.

Inside Xbox = free, available worldwide and updated pretty much daily
Qore = NOT free, available only in America and released once per month

Wrong again!

Quote:
19. The ability to join a session in progress (game specific on PSN)
- Um, yeah...that's game specific on XBL too...otherwise, how would you access the game already in session?

It's not game specific on XBL. It's situation specific. It's game specific on PSN. Wrong again!

0/19. Try harder next time!


As a side note, I'll also address this ill-informed comment: -

Quote:
And since they run at 720p they usually make the 360 game first then make additional graphical improvment tweaks to the games so it can take advantage of PS3’s 1080 native rez. So yeah the game comes out first on 360 because it’s not as advanced. I'm not sure I'd want to brag about that.

This is absolutely false. You'll find a list of native game resolutions here: -

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Notice how the 360 either matches the PS3 or does better? There are several games where the PS3 version runs at a lower res, but none where it runs at a higher res. Wrong again. As for overall cross-platform game performance, check this out: -

http://misterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-...ce-off-results/

It shows the results of Eurogamer's Face-Off articles, IGN's Head-to-Heads, and Lens of Truth's Head2Heads. Notice how the 360 nearly always ends up with the better version of the game? Funny that! Wrong again!

You must just love being wrong, cos you haven't said anything right yet. LOL.

4820.10.2009 14:01

Here let's try this again.

Originally posted by jookycola:
Nice rant funksoulb. Let's try maturity for a change.

So when I play Call of Duty: World at War on my PS3 online. How does the lack of:
8 player co-op
NXE
voicemail messaging
cross-game chat

Make my online game experience worse than if i had paid $50 to play it on my 360?

4920.10.2009 14:03

I'm not sure that native resolutions is the topic here. Pretty sure the topic of conversation is Xbox live raising the cost of subscriptions. And someone commented that they think the network is better than Sony's free one. I asked how so? How does paying $50 make my online game play experience better than it is free elsewhere?

So far all I've gotten is insults, bad spelling, been called a fanboy, petty immature rebuttals, been told about every feature the 360 has that has nothing to do with my question, told my facts are untrue, and out of context misquotes from me from this and other threads that i've made from my 6 years on Afterdawn and have nothing to do with this exact topic.

I'm pretty sure i have not received a simple straight forward mature and educated answer yet to my question. Hence why I'm asking it again.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 14:14

5020.10.2009 14:09

Originally posted by jookycola:
I'm not sure that native resolutions is the topic here. Pretty sure the topic of conversation is Xbox live raising the cost of subscriptions. And someone commented that they think the network is better than Sony's free on. I asked how so? So far all I've gotten is insults, petty immature rebuttals, Misquotes from me from this and other threads that have nothing to do with this topic.

I'm pretty sure i have not received a straight forward mature and educated answer yet to my question.

I've listed 19 things that PSN doesn't have. That should make it pretty clear to you that saying "there's no difference between them" is untrue. The fact that you actually put time into responding in the way you did - saying email is the same as cross-game chat, for example, LOL - shows to me that a. you don't know what you're talking about, and b. you simply cannot accept when you're wrong. You are wrong. You were wrong 19 times out of 19. That's not a good success rate, so I suggest you just give it up now. There is nothing you can say to change this, because I have only posted facts.

Now you're shifting the goalposts because you know that you can't respond to the facts I've posted. Instead of continuing to argue that email is the same as cross-game chat etc., lol, you are now trying to ask what benefits these features actually have in order to try and write them all of. It's a classic fanboy tactic, but I've already said more than enough to prove you wrong, so just accept that and move on. :)

Quote:
I'm pretty sure i have not received a simple straight forward mature and educated answer yet to my question. Hence why I'm asking it again.

Let's see....what was your original question.......

Quote:
And someone commented that they think the network is better than Sony's free one. I asked how so?

And I can refer you to my first response in this thread which answered your question in very simple terms, with examples where necessary. Your question has already been answered in a quite comprehensive way. Xbox Live is a lot better than PSN for the reasons given. If PSN is good enough for you, that's fine, but that's not what you originally asked.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 14:19

5120.10.2009 14:14

You Can join as a group and launch a game from Home = Party Mode

Killzone 2 friend invite was quickly fixed. Developers fault, not PSN.

One game? Flashpoint, you have to type. Holy crap.

Voice messaging = Text message (PSN people can read)

You can stream Netflix via PC

So you want to give someone a bad reputation but not block them?

We just get Demo’s of the good stuff. JK

Wow, I wish I knew he only had 17 minutes to go. This is a deal breaker

How many games have you developed and how much money have you made? I’ll leave this to the real developers.

Two gamer tags at once. That’s a benefit. Not $50 worth

Inside Xbox and Qore = Not worth reading

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 14:22

5220.10.2009 14:21

Quote:
Now you're shifting the goalposts because you know that you can't respond to the facts I've posted. Instead of continuing to argue that email is the same as cross-game chat etc., lol, you are now trying to ask what benefits these features actually have in order to try and write them all of. It's a classic fanboy tactic, but I've already said more than enough to prove you wrong, so just accept that and move on. :)
Um, i've NEVER switched my question. Reading owns you. I've asked the same question from the get go. You've posted childish insults and character stabs. I'm not a child so i won't respond to you.

If I ask you what makes the online "game play" experience better for $50?

Would that be simple enough for you to understand? Or would you like to go to the top and re-read all the way down at how many times i asked that exact same question in one form or another for clarification?

5320.10.2009 14:27

Here let's try this just one more time, since you seem to be avoiding answering this question like the plague. (I've only asked you to answer this 3 times now) This is after all been my question the whole time.

Originally posted by jookycola:

So when I play Call of Duty: World at War on my PS3 online. How does the lack of:
8 player co-op
NXE
voicemail messaging
cross-game chat


Make my online game experience worse than if i had paid $50 to play it on my 360?

5420.10.2009 14:35

Originally posted by glassd:
You Can join as a group and launch a game from Home = Party Mode

OK, let's compare how these two things work: -

Live - You can join a party by pushing one button. You then remain in that party when you move from game to game, or even if someone is playing a different game to you. You can leave the party or rejoin it when you like. You can switch between the party chat, the game chat, or one of the 3 private chat channels whenever you feel like it.

PSN - You have to go into HOME and meet up with people to launch a game. Only the handful of titles that support game launching from within HOME are supported. When you are actually in the game, it's no different from launching it the regular way and just inviting your friends. You cannot leave the party or rejoin it when you like. You cannot move from game to game as a group or play a different game but still be in the group and you do not have party-specific voice chat in the game, or the option of switching to the game's regular voice chat or any of the private chat channels (cos PSN doesn't have them).

They're absolutely nothing like each other. The Live system makes it easy to get together with friends, chat as a group, and stay together. The PSN system is a convoluted way of launching games, but once you're out of HOME, you have none of the added benefits that the Live party system offers.

Quote:
Killzone 2 friend invite was quickly fixed. Developers fault, not PSN.

One game? Flashpoint, you have to type. Holy crap.

This is an example of PSN's inconsistency. Those were just examples that I used. It shouldn't be like that. The invite/join system should be as universally well implemented as Live's.

Quote:
Voice messaging = Text message (PSN people can read)

This is another "email is the same as cross-game chat!" type thing. You can send text messages on Live too, but if you want to send a voicemail message, you can. You can't on PSN.

Quote:
You can stream Netflix via PC

But you can't on PSN. How many people have their TVs hooked up to a huge LCD or Plasma? Not many. Most people hook their games console up in their living room though.

Quote:
So you want to give someone a bad reputation but not block them?

On Live, when you give someone bad reputation you can choose from a number of categories on why you're giving them that bad rep. This affects their overall rep rating and their rep percentage. In their profile, then can also see a breakdown on why they've received bad rep. Also, if you give someone bad rep, you're less likely to be matched up with them in any game, but if you give someone positive rep, you're more likely to be matched up with them in future games so it affects matchmaking. PSN has nothing like this. You are just shifting the goalposts yet again.

Quote:
We just get Demo’s of the good stuff

Yeah, except when you don't. There's no demo of Trine. There was no demo of Fat Princess for weeks. Lots of good downloadable games don't have a demo. Again though, this is just goalpost shifting. I say Live has demos of every downloadable game, you then try and write this off by saying PSN only has demos of the good stuff, even though that's complete nonsense. lol.

Quote:
Wow, I wish I knew he only had 17 minutes to go. This is a deal breaker

PSN doesn't have it though does it? When I see that a mate has 17 minutes to go in a multiplayer match, I won't send him a chat invite or game invite and disturb them. I can see when the game is just about to end, so I can send the invite then. PSN doesn't have this of course, so you're going to write it off as not useful regardless! lol.

Quote:
How many games have you developed and how much money have you made? I’ll leave this to the real developers.

But you would build levels in LittleBigPlanet I'm sure? ;) What is a "real developer"? The Dishwasher: Dead Samurai was an indie game that ended up being uprated to full Xbox Live Arcade status. The fact that anyone with a little coding knowledge can download XNA and make a game, with a chance of getting their creation on Live for other people to play is great. PSN doesn't have this though, which is why you can't see any good in it!

Quote:
Two gamer tags at once. That’s a benefit. Not $50 worth

Up to 4 gamertags at once actually. 4 is more useful for local 4 player co-op games than online though. If you were only paying $50 a year for that feature, then it wouldn't be worth it, but obviously that's not all you're paying for.

Quote:
Inside Xbox and Qore = Not worth reading

I watch vids on Inside Xbox all the time. SentUAMessage is great, cos you can send messages to their gamertag and they'll answer your questions. The developer interviews and game previews are also very good. On Xbox Live you get those for free of course and you get new stuff almost every day. The videos stream too. You don't have to pay a fee to watch a show that only comes out once a month, like you do with Qore.

Anything else? You're sounding a bit desperate now to be fair.

5520.10.2009 14:41

this thread needs to be closed.

5620.10.2009 14:44

Originally posted by jookycola:
Um, i've NEVER switched my question. Reading owns you. I've asked the same question from the get go. You've posted childish insults and character stabs. I'm not a child so i won't respond to you.

If I ask you what makes the online "game play" experience better for $50?

Would that be simple enough for you to understand? Or would you like to go to the top and re-read all the way down at how many times i asked that exact same question in one form or another for clarification?

Reading owns me? How old are you mate? 12? I've addressed all of your points in a comprehensive way. You asked why Live is better and I told you. You have no response to that (no response that has a factual basis anyway), so now you're asking what makes the online gameplay experience better. It's easier to get people together playing games on Live than it is on PSN (with its inconsistent invite/join system) and Live has far more communication options, so if you want to chat just to your mates and not disturb other players (or have other players disturbing your conversation), then you can. You don't even have to be playing the same games to do that on Live, in fact. If if you've got any friends and one of them comes over, you can both log in with your own gamertags at the same time and both play online while chatting to other people. You don't have to leave your mate sitting there without a headset on either, like you do on PSN as it only supports 1. Live does everything PSN does, only better, and it does more besides. You should buy an Xbox 360, then you might see the difference for yourself. ;)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 14:45

5720.10.2009 14:44

Not desperite, just logical.

DXR88 = +1

Funk, we can agree to disagree.

later

5820.10.2009 14:47

Originally posted by glassd:
Not desperite, just logical.

There was nothing logical about your posts. If I said I had a car, you'd come along and say "who cares about a car? I've got a pair of roller blades and it's just the same thing!". That's the level you're at right now. LOL. There is no logical response to the list of features I've posted, other than to say "OK, I agree that PSN has none of those", because IT DOESN'T. lol. Like I said, if you find PSN acceptable for your needs, then there's nothing wrong with that. Arguing that it's just as good as Live in every way is utterly pointless though, because it simply isn't. You've already overstepped the desperation line with comments like "PSN only has demos of the good stuff". Surely even you can see that? Haha.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2009 @ 14:49

5920.10.2009 14:55

free

6020.10.2009 15:01

Originally posted by glassd:
free

So that's it is it? Live costs 50p a week - about as much as a can of Coca Cola, yet you think that PSN being free makes up for its inferiority and lack of features? It may well do for you, but it doesn't for me and lots of my friends who also own all of the current gen consoles. My PS3 is strictly for exclusives, because if you've got a 360, cross-platform games perform better most of the time, there's no forced installs (but you can install any game you like in full) and you get to play them all on an online system that's far better and all for just 50 pence per week.

Besides, as I said, if I'd downloaded the same games and DLC on PSN that I have on Live, it would have cost me more money as the same content is often more expensive on PSN.

6120.10.2009 15:15

xbox live needs to cost money. IT CAN'T BE FREE. simply because of the fact that you can just make as many accounts on a game such as halo and boost yourself. It costs money so that is what makes it harder for people to cheat. That is one reason xbox live is superior.
Because the network is much better than PS3, and you only need to pay if you're planning on playing against other people online. they used to just charge u for getting online period so they're getting better. With the PS Network getting better. If you can do something good, never do it for free. Microsoft's xbox live has millions of members and excellent match making so they really don't have any reasons not to keep charging cause they're still growing. I own both and must say that play station network is improving but still way behind xbox live. And who are we kidding people, xbox live has WAY more gamers on it that PlayStation network.



6220.10.2009 15:26

Originally posted by jookycola:
Here let's try this just one more time, since you seem to be avoiding answering this question like the plague. (I've only asked you to answer this 3 times now) This is after all been my question the whole time.
Originally posted by jookycola:

So when I play Call of Duty: World at War on my PS3 online. How does the lack of:
8 player co-op
NXE
voicemail messaging
cross-game chat


Make my online game experience worse than if i had paid $50 to play it on my 360?

There is a lot more people playing on xbox live COD WAW than PlayStation network WAW. When i play on the PlayStation the whole game gets lag sometimes but my internet connection works flawlessly on my xbox, hmmm I'm not sure but i think that that is a better experience. And a very high rank person might just decide to start over so because it is free he says what the hell and makes a new account and dominates the rookies. The xbox live would discourage that.


6320.10.2009 15:35

On COD:WAW on the 360 you also have extra options for searching for games that do not exist on the PS3. You can pick from the following settings: -

Worldwide (matches you up with players from anywhere)
Locale first (looks for local players first before extending the search)
Locale only (only looks for local players)

Also, the after action reports didn't work for ages on PSN, but they've always worked fine on Live because of the data that Live makes available to devs. They don't have to patch these features into the game, which all comes down to the inconsistency of PSN again.

6420.10.2009 20:02

pc gaming online > all other

6520.10.2009 21:22

Originally posted by shaffaaf:
pc gaming online > all other

Free and you can do whatever the hell you want.

For everyone complaining about PSN having less features than XBL, XBL is about 3 years older than PSN.

6620.10.2009 22:59

no i think they're going to up the price so they can cover the cost of replacing all the RROD

6721.10.2009 6:09
chris4160
Inactive

Originally posted by core2kid:
For everyone complaining about PSN having less features than XBL, XBL is about 3 years older than PSN.
It's not microsoft's fault sony did not create the idea to bring online gaming to consoles. Without xbox live psn may not have existed.

6821.10.2009 7:59

Originally posted by DXR88:
this thread needs to be closed.
That'd be up to Andre, it's his article.

jookycola / funksoulb - hopefully you've both finished now ?.



Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***

6921.10.2009 11:07

Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by core2kid:
For everyone complaining about PSN having less features than XBL, XBL is about 3 years older than PSN.
It's not microsoft's fault sony did not create the idea to bring online gaming to consoles. Without xbox live psn may not have existed.

I'm sure it would have been, Dreamcast had online but the fact is that PS2 didn't really have the online games like Xbox. They had online but it was supported by the developers of the game, not XBL so the game developers essentially had to do more for the PS2 than the Xbox.

7022.10.2009 2:06

Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
this thread needs to be closed.
That'd be up to Andre, it's his article.

jookycola / funksoulb - hopefully you've both finished now ?.
Why are we closing this? lol

7122.10.2009 10:40

Fanboy-ism

7222.10.2009 11:28

Come on now, $50 vs Free, of course paying services are better, otherwise there would be millions of idiots out there. It all comes down to personal taste really.

Well, sucks that Live fee is going up :(

7322.10.2009 11:33

Originally posted by Gnawnivek:
of course paying services are better, otherwise there would be millions of idiots out there.

I disagree. For example, when you buy a Honda vs Acura. They are made by the same people but you are paying more for the Acura because of brand name. For Tylenol vs a generic pain killer. Both have the same exact ingredients but you are paying more for the brand name.

7422.10.2009 12:25

Quote:
Originally posted by Gnawnivek:
of course paying services are better, otherwise there would be millions of idiots out there.

I disagree. For example, when you buy a Honda vs Acura. They are made by the same people but you are paying more for the Acura because of brand name. For Tylenol vs a generic pain killer. Both have the same exact ingredients but you are paying more for the brand name.
Okay, good point there, you got me :)

I was just talking about $50 Live vs. Free PSN. In this case, $50 Live is a better service than free PSN. I'm not saying it's entirely $50 value-wise better, but it's better in general (hell, it's much older than PSN, so it has a lot of roots in that area). Again, value comparison is subjective. For me, i prefer free PSN, because i don't use cross game chats and gamer profiles (forget about Netflix streaming, pointless).

7522.10.2009 23:27
icfshop01
Inactive

spam edited by ddp

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Oct 2009 @ 23:39

7625.10.2009 12:51

Originally posted by creaky:
Originally posted by DXR88:
this thread needs to be closed.
That'd be up to Andre, it's his article.

jookycola / funksoulb - hopefully you've both finished now ?.
Done? I was done ages ago when the guy couldn't answer my simple question. And instead just double talked his way around the question with childish fanboy'ism, googling my past posts, and then claiming he answered it...all the while, he never did.
Typical.
I asked a question and none of the 360 guys could answer it, just troll me. So what more can i do? So yes I'm done, they more than proved my point.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive