Name one AAAE PSN arcade game?PSN games killed every game on live..hands down..when Sony release more games and bring Ps1 classics games..its a wrapped for microsoft..
stayhigh1
PS3's hardware superiority makes PSN better than Xbox LIVE
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]If you watch the making of Killzone 2, you will see just how much the Cell CPU has to handle at once. From all the different graphical filtering, rendering, physics, animation, too the 7.1 surround sound which is some of the best I have heard in a game. The X360's GPU could have handled most of the rendering sure, but it's CPU would have melted if it tried to run all these applications at once. We have still yet to see a game on the X360 that is as impressive as KZ2. I think it's better to say that Gears 2 could have easily been done on the PS3, since it's based on the UE3 engine. You don't even know what you're talking about you think those 3 vector units the 360 has are there for nothing? each processor handles 2 threads,those threads are really powerful on par with the SPus,let alone the 48 shader processors inside the Xenos....and the supercomputer mentality of the PS3 persists. There are a few of you hardcore cows that cannot seem to wake up to the fact that the PS3s hardware is weak. There is no single graphical technique in Killzone 2 that cannot be done on the 360. Ask anyone who knows anything about GPUs. Dont get started on the cell, its no substitute for a proper dedicated graphics card. The only thing that would struggle on the 360 would be to incorperate lossless audio because of the disk format :lol:
Martin_G_N
I kinda agree that LIVE and PSN are based on hardware. LIVE and PSN are nothing without games. Games are based on hardware. Therefore, LIVE and PSN are based on hardware.opalmanXBL and PSN are both on their second generation of hardware, and online has existed for 15+ years. Think back to Doom, counterstrike, etc etc. You could make the same experience XBL and PSN provide on any number of platforms. Hardware has next to nothing to do with online.
XBL and PSN are both on their second generation of hardware, and online has existed for 15+ years. Think back to Doom, counterstrike, etc etc. You could make the same experience XBL and PSN provide on any number of platforms. Hardware has next to nothing to do with online. Well, same with games. Games have gone through several generations already. Each generation of games is based on the hadware of that generation. The games you can play on Xbox LIVE last generation looks/sounds a lot worse than this generation's. I don't think you can deny the fact that LIVE and PSN would be nothing without the games. So, as I had said, if the games are based on the hardware, then LIVE and PSN are also based on hardware. Furthermore, think about World of Warcraft or other online computer games. For gamers with a weaker hardware, you will get more lag and framerate issues if you play the games at high settings.[QUOTE="opalman"]I kinda agree that LIVE and PSN are based on hardware. LIVE and PSN are nothing without games. Games are based on hardware. Therefore, LIVE and PSN are based on hardware.Steppy_76
I wouldn't say every PSN games kill LIVE games. I think the entire argument in this thread lies on whether one believes that LIVE and PSN are based on games and whether games are based on hardware. Assumig both cases are true, which they should be, then it comes down to deciding if PS3 or 360 has a better hardware than the other. So, better hardware-->better games-->better online service.PSN games killed every game on live..hands down..when Sony release more games and bring Ps1 classics games..its a wrapped for microsoft..
stayhigh1
Online services have nothing to do with hardware...killerfistThe point of online service like LIVE and PSN is to provide gaming experience. So LIVE and PSN are totally dependent on the games available on the service. The games are very dependent on the hardware.
[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]XBL and PSN are both on their second generation of hardware, and online has existed for 15+ years. Think back to Doom, counterstrike, etc etc. You could make the same experience XBL and PSN provide on any number of platforms. Hardware has next to nothing to do with online. Well, same with games. Games have gone through several generations already. Each generation of games is based on the hadware of that generation. The games you can play on Xbox LIVE last generation looks/sounds a lot worse than this generation's. I don't think you can deny the fact that LIVE and PSN would be nothing without the games. So, as I had said, if the games are based on the hardware, then LIVE and PSN are also based on hardware. Furthermore, think about World of Warcraft or other online computer games. For gamers with a weaker hardware, you will get more lag and framerate issues if you play the games at high settings.[QUOTE="opalman"]I kinda agree that LIVE and PSN are based on hardware. LIVE and PSN are nothing without games. Games are based on hardware. Therefore, LIVE and PSN are based on hardware.opalman
Is this really that hard for you to understand? OK, I'll try and make it simple for you. Break down each online service in terms of its sights and sounds. They are simple visual representations of menus. They barely even use any kind of 3D effect. Rendering the avatars or a custom wallpaper is not going to stretch the hardware of the console. The same goes for the sounds they make.
Chat, in game chat and invites etc is more down to getting all the developers to integrate basic elements into the game, same goes with achievements etc. None of this is restricted by the hardware. This is simply down to how well the 'software' is written, getting 3rd parties to suport it and having good servers at the other end to back it all up.
I'll say it again, none of it is limited by the hardware of the console. kk?
Ps3's hardware makes PSN a polished turd.
You don't even know what you're talking about you think those 3 vector units the 360 has are there for nothing? each processor handles 2 threads,those threads are really powerful on par with the SPus,let alone the 48 shader processors inside the Xenos.
McdonaIdsGuy
Two threads running on the same xenon core have to share the same processor resources (ALU, Vector unit, cache). This means that if they need to use the same resources, then the two threads will run slower than one thread doing both tasks. This also means that the two threads aren't operating on the same set of data, the cache will get thrashed (since it's shared) and the two threads will again run slower than a single thread. This is much different from the SPU's, which are completely independent processing units and thus don't have the same restrictions.
[QUOTE="opalman"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]XBL and PSN are both on their second generation of hardware, and online has existed for 15+ years. Think back to Doom, counterstrike, etc etc. You could make the same experience XBL and PSN provide on any number of platforms. Hardware has next to nothing to do with online.
Well, same with games. Games have gone through several generations already. Each generation of games is based on the hadware of that generation. The games you can play on Xbox LIVE last generation looks/sounds a lot worse than this generation's. I don't think you can deny the fact that LIVE and PSN would be nothing without the games. So, as I had said, if the games are based on the hardware, then LIVE and PSN are also based on hardware. Furthermore, think about World of Warcraft or other online computer games. For gamers with a weaker hardware, you will get more lag and framerate issues if you play the games at high settings.Is this really that hard for you to understand? OK, I'll try and make it simple for you. Break down each online service in terms of its sights and sounds. They are simple visual representations of menus. They barely even use any kind of 3D effect. Rendering the avatars or a custom wallpaper is not going to stretch the hardware of the console. The same goes for the sounds they make.
Chat, in game chat and invites etc is more down to getting all the developers to integrate basic elements into the game, same goes with achievements etc. None of this is restricted by the hardware. This is simply down to how well the 'software' is written, getting 3rd parties to suport it and having good servers at the other end to back it all up.
I'll say it again, none of it is limited by the hardware of the console. kk?
How can I understand it if you totally ignore the games!!!! I know the online services provides menus, avatars, voice chats, etc. All of these are secondary to the games available on the services. Is it so hard for you to see that PSN and LIVE would be nothing without games?A while back there is a study about wines. They let tasters rate wines based on prices. What came out of the experiment was that tasters rated expensive wines better than cheaper ones even though the wines are exactly the same. It is human nature to assume that if it costs more, it's got to be better. So when it comes to LIVE, people often say you get what you pay for. But do you really get what you pay for? In my opinion, you absolutely do not.
You see, when you pay for a service, you expect premium experience--better communication, more impressive games, more variety, less lag, etc. Unfortunately, because LIVE is based on Xbox 360's inferior hardware, it is impossible for LIVE to provide a more premium service than PSN.
Xbox 360 lacks cell processor, Blu-ray, motion control, and standard hard disk drives. The PS3 has all of them. As a result, only on PSN can you get:
1) Better graphics. This is a very big one. When you play a game, you are constantly looking at the TV screen. The better the graphics, the better the immersion. The better you feel like you are getting your money's worth. Without a doubt, the PS3 has better graphics. Just compare Halo 3's Mythic Map Pack Trailer HD with Killzone 2's Vekta Cruiser Gameplay HD andKillzone 2's Wasteland Bullet Gameplay HD. Killzone 2 makes Halo 3 look pathetic in this day and age.
2) Better sounds. You can say PSN has better sounds because its can produce 7.1 lossless audio, something that most gamers can't take advantaged of. The point is, PSN has better sounds overall. Should gamers want the experience the best sounds possible, they can only get it on PSN, not LIVE.
3) Larger multiplayer battles. To maintain graphical and aural integrity, the more players participate in a game, the more the processor has to work. PSN's cell is so much better than Xbox 360's processor that only on PSN can you play 32-player battles with Killzone 2's graphics, 60 players with Resistance 2's graphics, and 256 players with Mag's graphics. Larger battles mean more intense and more realistic battles.
4) Larger downloadable games. Because the PS3 has a large standard hard-disk drive, PSN allow players to download bigger games--Warhawk, Siren, GT5 Prolgoue, etc.
5) Best user generated contents/More contents overall. This is where Blu-ray disk comes in handy. LittleBigPlanet, the highest rated HD exclusve, has many, many graphical and audio contents for gamers to use to create and share games. Blu-ray also comes in handy for when developers decide to add a lot of large number of maps, cars, etc. for multiplayer gaming without having to download anything.
6) Zen gaming. This is a genre single-handedly created by Flower, the most popular game on PSN last month. Only on PSN, can you get a game that can produce the most realistic meadows because the cell processor can render grass oh so beautifully. Flower also uses motion control, making it very intuitive to play the game. The combination of graphics, control, and sounds make Flower the most soothing, relaxing, and artistic game ever created.
7) More immersive gaming. This is very, very important. When you play a game, you want to feel lost in the game world. Nothing sucks you in like the game's atmosphere. And the game's atmosphere is dependent on graphics, sounds, animation, physics, AI, number of enemies, etc.--all dependent on hardware capability. No modern game is better at creating immersion than Killzone 2.
8 ) Less Lag. We all know that PSN's big games all use dedicated serves. So games are more fair and more fun to play. With PSN you don't have to feel like you are losing a game because your opponent has a host advantage.
9)More Variety. PSN offers more "unique" gaming experiences than LIVE. LittleBigPlanet, FLower, Eye of Judgement, Warhawk, etc. are all very unique gaming epxeriences. You can't find similar experiences on LIVE.
10)Fear-free gaming. This has to do with hard-ware reliabilty. Millions of Xbox 360 fans have now experienced RROD and/or E-74. With marathon mulitplayer gaming sessions, PSN gamers don't have to worry if their console is dying on them. The same can't be said for Xbox 360 owners.
11 & 12) HOME and Web browsing (just added on 4-20-09). These might not be related to hardware, though they are very major advantages for PSN.
I challenge anyone to make a convincing case for LIVE, in light of the PSN advantages I listed above.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to ask when will LIVE catch up to PSN? Is it even possible? Because Xbox 360's hardware is inferior to the PS3's, LIVE is limited by hardware. It's unbelievable how Microsoft can charge for service based on inferior hardware. Unbelievable. PSN is better. And PSN is free. Unbelievable indeed.
teemany
Didn't you post this to death on a thread bashing the xbox 360 recently?
[QUOTE="DAZZER7"][QUOTE="opalman"] Well, same with games. Games have gone through several generations already. Each generation of games is based on the hadware of that generation. The games you can play on Xbox LIVE last generation looks/sounds a lot worse than this generation's. I don't think you can deny the fact that LIVE and PSN would be nothing without the games. So, as I had said, if the games are based on the hardware, then LIVE and PSN are also based on hardware. Furthermore, think about World of Warcraft or other online computer games. For gamers with a weaker hardware, you will get more lag and framerate issues if you play the games at high settings. opalman
Is this really that hard for you to understand? OK, I'll try and make it simple for you. Break down each online service in terms of its sights and sounds. They are simple visual representations of menus. They barely even use any kind of 3D effect. Rendering the avatars or a custom wallpaper is not going to stretch the hardware of the console. The same goes for the sounds they make.
Chat, in game chat and invites etc is more down to getting all the developers to integrate basic elements into the game, same goes with achievements etc. None of this is restricted by the hardware. This is simply down to how well the 'software' is written, getting 3rd parties to suport it and having good servers at the other end to back it all up.
I'll say it again, none of it is limited by the hardware of the console. kk?
How can I understand it if you totally ignore the games!!!! I know the online services provides menus, avatars, voice chats, etc. All of these are secondary to the games available on the services. Is it so hard for you to see that PSN and LIVE would be nothing without games?Wait wait, so you're basing this entirely on which has the better games? Why not just make a thread on that then lol? Which console has the 'best' games is very subjective. Anyway, to fairly and objectively compare the services, you need to compare specifically what each service offers in terms of features. Looking at games is NOT really comparing online services is it now?
[QUOTE="opalman"][QUOTE="DAZZER7"]
Is this really that hard for you to understand? OK, I'll try and make it simple for you. Break down each online service in terms of its sights and sounds. They are simple visual representations of menus. They barely even use any kind of 3D effect. Rendering the avatars or a custom wallpaper is not going to stretch the hardware of the console. The same goes for the sounds they make.
Chat, in game chat and invites etc is more down to getting all the developers to integrate basic elements into the game, same goes with achievements etc. None of this is restricted by the hardware. This is simply down to how well the 'software' is written, getting 3rd parties to suport it and having good servers at the other end to back it all up.
I'll say it again, none of it is limited by the hardware of the console. kk?
How can I understand it if you totally ignore the games!!!! I know the online services provides menus, avatars, voice chats, etc. All of these are secondary to the games available on the services. Is it so hard for you to see that PSN and LIVE would be nothing without games?Wait wait, so you're basing this entirely on which has the better games? Why not just make a thread on that then lol? Which console has the 'best' games is very subjective. Anyway, to fairly and objectively compare the services, you need to compare specifically what each service offers in terms of features. Looking at games is NOT really comparing online services is it now?
I am not saying which service has better games---it is too subjective a matter. I am saying the TC has a point. LIVE and PSN are based on hardware because LIVE and PSN are based on games and games are based on hardware. I partly disagree with you. I agree that you have include the features when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. I also think you have to compare the games. In fact, games are more important than features so long as the basic features are there--multiplayer gaming, text and voice chat, downlable contents, etc. Both LIVE and PSN have these basic features already. I get the feeling that you think games aren't an important part of LIVE vs. PSN discussions. This, I totally disagree.[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]
You don't even know what you're talking about you think those 3 vector units the 360 has are there for nothing? each processor handles 2 threads,those threads are really powerful on par with the SPus,let alone the 48 shader processors inside the Xenos.
Teufelhuhn
Two threads running on the same xenon core have to share the same processor resources (ALU, Vector unit, cache). This means that if they need to use the same resources, then the two threads will run slower than one thread doing both tasks. This also means that the two threads aren't operating on the same set of data, the cache will get thrashed (since it's shared) and the two threads will again run slower than a single thread. This is much different from the SPU's, which are completely independent processing units and thus don't have the same restrictions.
My understanding was that the version of the cell in the PS3 is not capable of 'out-of-order' processing like you have described? Also with the 2 hardware threads, using the 2 hardware threads suits certain tasks that dont occupy the full cache etc. Certain tasks can be set up to be processed on each thread where the full resouces are not necessarily used to full capacity. I'm probably not explaining this very well but I'm sure there are times when using 2 threads is better than 1?
[QUOTE="DAZZER7"][QUOTE="opalman"] How can I understand it if you totally ignore the games!!!! I know the online services provides menus, avatars, voice chats, etc. All of these are secondary to the games available on the services. Is it so hard for you to see that PSN and LIVE would be nothing without games? opalman
Wait wait, so you're basing this entirely on which has the better games? Why not just make a thread on that then lol? Which console has the 'best' games is very subjective. Anyway, to fairly and objectively compare the services, you need to compare specifically what each service offers in terms of features. Looking at games is NOT really comparing online services is it now?
I am not saying which service has better games---it is too subjective a matter. I am saying the TC has a point. LIVE and PSN are based on hardware because LIVE and PSN are based on games and games are based on hardware. I partly disagree with you. I agree that you have include the features when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. I also think you have to compare the games. In fact, games are more important than features so long as the basic features are there--multiplayer gaming, text and voice chat, downlable contents, etc. Both LIVE and PSN have these basic features already. I get the feeling that you think games aren't an important part of LIVE vs. PSN discussions. This, I totally disagree.The only way games really matter is if the features of an online service are supported by a particular game. I'm a pc gamer mainly, when considering which online service to use say from steam to Xfire or even game ranger, putting actual features aside, I look at which service supports the most games and content. So in that respect, I guess you have a point but again Live wins as its features are supported by all games.
Unless of course you're referring to the actual online features the individual games themselves offer? Like what Killzone 2 offers compared to COD4 does but then that is getting away from comparing what PSN is offering compared to live and is really comparing individual games.
[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]
You don't even know what you're talking about you think those 3 vector units the 360 has are there for nothing? each processor handles 2 threads,those threads are really powerful on par with the SPus,let alone the 48 shader processors inside the Xenos.
Teufelhuhn
Two threads running on the same xenon core have to share the same processor resources (ALU, Vector unit, cache). This means that if they need to use the same resources, then the two threads will run slower than one thread doing both tasks. This also means that the two threads aren't operating on the same set of data, the cache will get thrashed (since it's shared) and the two threads will again run slower than a single thread. This is much different from the SPU's, which are completely independent processing units and thus don't have the same restrictions.
Two threads running slower than one, very unlikely. If any capable programmer knows what they're doing, they can take advantage of the simeltenous multi-threading and work as if there were two cores. They can operate on the same data by many different methods, one of which could be to instantiate the data in a global block or pass a handle to each thread.
[QUOTE="opalman"][QUOTE="DAZZER7"]
Wait wait, so you're basing this entirely on which has the better games? Why not just make a thread on that then lol? Which console has the 'best' games is very subjective. Anyway, to fairly and objectively compare the services, you need to compare specifically what each service offers in terms of features. Looking at games is NOT really comparing online services is it now?
I am not saying which service has better games---it is too subjective a matter. I am saying the TC has a point. LIVE and PSN are based on hardware because LIVE and PSN are based on games and games are based on hardware. I partly disagree with you. I agree that you have include the features when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. I also think you have to compare the games. In fact, games are more important than features so long as the basic features are there--multiplayer gaming, text and voice chat, downlable contents, etc. Both LIVE and PSN have these basic features already. I get the feeling that you think games aren't an important part of LIVE vs. PSN discussions. This, I totally disagree.The only way games really matter is if the features of an online service are supported by a particular game. I'm a pc gamer mainly, when considering which online service to use say from steam to Xfire or even game ranger, putting actual features aside, I look at which service supports the most games and content. So in that respect, I guess you have a point but again Live wins as its features are supported by all games.
Unless of course you're referring to the actual online features the individual games themselves offer? Like what Killzone 2 offers compared to COD4 does but then that is getting away from comparing what PSN is offering compared to live and is really comparing individual games.
You said: "The only way games really matter is if the features of an online service are supported by a particular game." Well, then all the games on LIVE and PSN uses certain features of LIVE and PSN: multiplayer capability, downloadable service, voice chat, etc. I see. You are a PC gamer using the same PC for all online services from steam to Xfire. You have to remember that the games on those services don't differ in terms of graphics, sounds, mulitplayer size, controls, etc. because you are using the same PC--with the exact, same hardware. But if you use PS3 vs. 360, then you notice that graphics, sounds, multiplayer size, controls, etc. differ from one service to another. So it is fair to compare PSN vs. LIVE in terms of games, in an objective way. Graphics, sounds, etc. are all matters that can be discussed in an objective way. In this repect, hardware does set PSN apart from LIVE.So what part(s) of the thread makes it so dumb. I think the OP brings in a new perspective (hardware) when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. The points he/she listed are pretty reasonable--I mean I have often read much worse/dumber statements in this forum.This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read, my IQ has now fallen. To the OP, get informed, know or at least have a clue before making such statements.
themyth01
[QUOTE="themyth01"]So what part(s) of the thread makes it so dumb. I think the OP brings in a new perspective (hardware) when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. The points he/she listed are pretty reasonable--I mean I have often read much worse/dumber statements in this forum. So much of it, for example an online service is not directly dependent on the hardware and the Wii could have the best online services if Nintendo had the best programmers for the task. Then the hardware superiority argument which is flawed in and of itself and gives rises to dozens of inconsistencies since his idea is based on this belief yet the difference in hardware capability is minimal at best and certainly not enough to make the difference between online services.This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read, my IQ has now fallen. To the OP, get informed, know or at least have a clue before making such statements.
opalman
[QUOTE="themyth01"]So what part(s) of the thread makes it so dumb. I think the OP brings in a new perspective (hardware) when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. The points he/she listed are pretty reasonable--I mean I have often read much worse/dumber statements in this forum.They are all subjective. The same game on two systems one with better hardware and a crappy online service will not be better than the game on the system with worse hardware and a better online service. The two are not really connected. Most of his hardware "superiority" wasn't even proved in the first place.This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read, my IQ has now fallen. To the OP, get informed, know or at least have a clue before making such statements.
opalman
[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]One day maybe you'll learn how to actually form an argument AND back it up with fact.fluxoratorIf you wanted arguments backed with facts you wouldn't be on System Wars. So one day maybe you'll learn, this isn't the place dear. :)One can never get better, if one doesn't ask for better. Besides, it's fun to tear down ridiculous arguements and taunt the poster about his lack of facts all in one shot.
My understanding was that the version of the cell in the PS3 is not capable of 'out-of-order' processing like you have described?
DAZZER7
Nothing I said had anything to do with oooe (out of order execution)...oooe is when low-level assembly instructions are dynamically reordered by the CPU in order to speed it up, with the intention of making poorly-optimized code execute quicker. Neither the Xenon or Cell do this.
Also with the 2 hardware threads, using the 2 hardware threads suits certain tasks that dont occupy the full cache etc. Certain tasks can be set up to be processed on each thread where the full resouces are not necessarily used to full capacity. I'm probably not explaining this very well but I'm sure there are times when using 2 threads is better than 1?DAZZER7
I wasn't saying that that using both hardware threads would *never* be faster than using one, that would be silly. If you do it right you can definitely get some performance boost. I was just taking issue with the previous poster's claim that a hardware thread was somehow equivalent to an SPU, since the hardware threads have the performance implications that I mentioned.
Two threads running slower than one, very unlikely.
themyth01
Au contraire, it's not unlikely at all. A naive attempt at multithreading any task that's not embarassingly parallel will almost always be slower than a single-threaded version. Getting a performance boost from concurrency is all about what data and resources need to be shared by your separate threads. When they work on completely different data sets, both threads can do their own thing independently and it will get done twice has fast. However when they need the same data, then the threads needs to "talk" to each other in order to make sure they don't step on each other's toes. This is known as "synchronization", and the more of it you have to do the more your performance goes down the tubes. Since a single-threaded approach doesn't require synchronization, your performance gain has to be greater than the performance loss from synchronization overhead (otherwise you run slower).
If any capable programmer knows what they're doing, they can take advantage of the simeltenous multi-threading and work as if there were two cores.themyth01
It depends on what you're doing. Some stuff might be a natural fit, a lot of stuff probably won't. Remember games are made on a budget, and the benefits of spending time figuring out the best way to squeeze performance out of a second hardware thread (or SPU) won't always outweigh the cost. Plus it's not like everyone is a concurrency guru...if this stuff were easy nobody would be freaking out about going multicore. :P
at last!!!someone talking truth!!xbox 360 fans,life isnt over yet, you can always buy a ps3
[QUOTE="antibanner"]
at last!!!someone talking truth!!xbox 360 fans,life isnt over yet, you can always buy a ps3
Wow, credibility killed in under 30 posts. Most PS3 fans don't agree with Teemany's ridiculous claims, so I wouldn't hang my hat on that. don't worry, he received the banhammer recently.[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Wow, credibility killed in under 30 posts. Most PS3 fans don't agree with Teemany's ridiculous claims, so I wouldn't hang my hat on that. don't worry, he received the banhammer recently.He'll just resurface yet again with a new name. At least his post are easy to spot regardless of what he calls himself.[QUOTE="antibanner"]
at last!!!someone talking truth!!xbox 360 fans,life isnt over yet, you can always buy a ps3
clone01
Halo 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that stuffA while back there is a study about wines. They let tasters rate wines based on prices. What came out of the experiment was that tasters rated expensive wines better than cheaper ones even though the wines are exactly the same. It is human nature to assume that if it costs more, it's got to be better. So when it comes to LIVE, people often say you get what you pay for. But do you really get what you pay for? In my opinion, you absolutely do not.
You see, when you pay for a service, you expect premium experience--better communication, more impressive games, more variety, less lag, etc. Unfortunately, because LIVE is based on Xbox 360's inferior hardware, it is impossible for LIVE to provide a more premium service than PSN.
Xbox 360 lacks cell processor, Blu-ray, motion control, and standard hard disk drives. The PS3 has all of them. As a result, only on PSN can you get:
1) Better graphics. This is a very big one. When you play a game, you are constantly looking at the TV screen. The better the graphics, the better the immersion. The better you feel like you are getting your money's worth. Without a doubt, the PS3 has better graphics. Just compare Halo 3's Mythic Map Pack Trailer HD with Killzone 2's Vekta Cruiser Gameplay HD andKillzone 2's Wasteland Bullet Gameplay HD. Killzone 2 makes Halo 3 look pathetic in this day and age.
2) Better sounds. You can say PSN has better sounds because its can produce 7.1 lossless audio, something that most gamers can't take advantaged of. The point is, PSN has better sounds overall. Should gamers want the experience the best sounds possible, they can only get it on PSN, not LIVE.
3) Larger multiplayer battles. To maintain graphical and aural integrity, the more players participate in a game, the more the processor has to work. PSN's cell is so much better than Xbox 360's processor that only on PSN can you play 32-player battles with Killzone 2's graphics, 60 players with Resistance 2's graphics, and 256 players with Mag's graphics. Larger battles mean more intense and more realistic battles.
4) Larger downloadable games. Because the PS3 has a large standard hard-disk drive, PSN allow players to download bigger games--Warhawk, Siren, GT5 Prolgoue, etc.
5) Best user generated contents/More contents overall. This is where Blu-ray disk comes in handy. LittleBigPlanet, the highest rated HD exclusve, has many, many graphical and audio contents for gamers to use to create and share games. Blu-ray also comes in handy for when developers decide to add a lot of large number of maps, cars, etc. for multiplayer gaming without having to download anything.
6) Zen gaming. This is a genre single-handedly created by Flower, the most popular game on PSN last month. Only on PSN, can you get a game that can produce the most realistic meadows because the cell processor can render grass oh so beautifully. Flower also uses motion control, making it very intuitive to play the game. The combination of graphics, control, and sounds make Flower the most soothing, relaxing, and artistic game ever created.
7) More immersive gaming. This is very, very important. When you play a game, you want to feel lost in the game world. Nothing sucks you in like the game's atmosphere. And the game's atmosphere is dependent on graphics, sounds, animation, physics, AI, number of enemies, etc.--all dependent on hardware capability. No modern game is better at creating immersion than Killzone 2.
8 ) Less Lag. We all know that PSN's big games all use dedicated serves. So games are more fair and more fun to play. With PSN you don't have to feel like you are losing a game because your opponent has a host advantage.
9)More Variety. PSN offers more "unique" gaming experiences than LIVE. LittleBigPlanet, FLower, Eye of Judgement, Warhawk, etc. are all very unique gaming epxeriences. You can't find similar experiences on LIVE.
10)Fear-free gaming. This has to do with hard-ware reliabilty. Millions of Xbox 360 fans have now experienced RROD and/or E-74. With marathon mulitplayer gaming sessions, PSN gamers don't have to worry if their console is dying on them. The same can't be said for Xbox 360 owners.
11 & 12) HOME and Web browsing (just added on 4-20-09). These might not be related to hardware, though they are very major advantages for PSN.
I challenge anyone to make a convincing case for LIVE, in light of the PSN advantages I listed above.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to ask when will LIVE catch up to PSN? Is it even possible? Because Xbox 360's hardware is inferior to the PS3's, LIVE is limited by hardware. It's unbelievable how Microsoft can charge for service based on inferior hardware. Unbelievable. PSN is better. And PSN is free. Unbelievable indeed.
teemany
Some of the stuff like lossless audio, user-generated content (PSN destroys XBL in this category), better hardware reliablity (not even a debate here) and better graphics (so far) I agree with.
Some of the other stuff is debatable at best.
But you sure can't beat all the online stuff Sony is giving gamers without charging a monthly maintanence fee.
[QUOTE="killerfist"]Online services have nothing to do with hardware...opalmanThe point of online service like LIVE and PSN is to provide gaming experience. So LIVE and PSN are totally dependent on the games available on the service. The games are very dependent on the hardware. so this is about games?:?
LOL. Lems are afraid of the TC. nimbambaYeah, because taking his post head on and disproving it point by point is a sure sign of fear :roll: Hmmm, anybody wanna take bets on whether we see threads with just as poorly formed arguments as this one started by a low level poster from this thread?
This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read, my IQ has now fallen. To the OP, get informed, know or at least have a clue before making such statements.
So what part(s) of the thread makes it so dumb. I think the OP brings in a new perspective (hardware) when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. The points he/she listed are pretty reasonable--I mean I have often read much worse/dumber statements in this forum. So much of it, for example an online service is not directly dependent on the hardware and the Wii could have the best online services if Nintendo had the best programmers for the task. Then the hardware superiority argument which is flawed in and of itself and gives rises to dozens of inconsistencies since his idea is based on this belief yet the difference in hardware capability is minimal at best and certainly not enough to make the difference between online services. Directly or indirectly, LIVE is still dependent on hardware. For example, can you play motion-controlled games on LIVE? You can you play multiplayer games with Killzone 2's graphics on LIVE? Why is the hardware superiority flawed? PS3 has cell, blu-ray, standard hard disk drive, motion control, and more dedidcated servers. PS3 is also more reliable. How, then you can say PS3 doesn't have a superior hardware? I think a lot of lems are insecure about the issue of hardware comparisons. This thread reeks of insecurity on the lemmings side.[QUOTE="opalman"][QUOTE="themyth01"]
This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read, my IQ has now fallen. To the OP, get informed, know or at least have a clue before making such statements.
So what part(s) of the thread makes it so dumb. I think the OP brings in a new perspective (hardware) when comparing LIVE vs. PSN. The points he/she listed are pretty reasonable--I mean I have often read much worse/dumber statements in this forum.They are all subjective. The same game on two systems one with better hardware and a crappy online service will not be better than the game on the system with worse hardware and a better online service. The two are not really connected. Most of his hardware "superiority" wasn't even proved in the first place. The hardware superiority is already proven. Some people just can't accept it. PS3 has cell, blu-ray, motion control, standard hard disk drive, and more reliablity. All of these prove, without a doubt, that PS3 has a superior hardware. The console graphics king is also on the PS3. How can you not see the proof?[QUOTE="opalman"][QUOTE="killerfist"]Online services have nothing to do with hardware...killerfistThe point of online service like LIVE and PSN is to provide gaming experience. So LIVE and PSN are totally dependent on the games available on the service. The games are very dependent on the hardware. so this is about games?:? Aren't LIVE and PSN about games?
Yeah, because taking his post head on and disproving it point by point is a sure sign of fear :roll: Hmmm, anybody wanna take bets on whether we see threads with just as poorly formed arguments as this one started by a low level poster from this thread? Be fair now. TC's views, while biased, are quite logically sound. He says PS3 has a superior hardware. It makes sense because PS3 has cell, blu-ray, motion control, more dedicated servers, and more reliability. He says because of the superior hardware, PSN is better than LIVE. Well, if it is true that PS3 has a better hardware, then only PSN (not LIVE) can take advantage of PS3's hardware.[QUOTE="nimbamba"]LOL. Lems are afraid of the TC. Steppy_76
[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Yeah, because taking his post head on and disproving it point by point is a sure sign of fear :roll: Hmmm, anybody wanna take bets on whether we see threads with just as poorly formed arguments as this one started by a low level poster from this thread? Be fair now. TC's views, while biased, are quite logically sound. He says PS3 has a superior hardware. It makes sense because PS3 has cell, blu-ray, motion control, more dedicated servers, and more reliability. He says because of the superior hardware, PSN is better than LIVE. Well, if it is true that PS3 has a better hardware, then only PSN (not LIVE) can take advantage of PS3's hardware. Whatever you say Teemany. Thanks for making my prediction come true.[QUOTE="nimbamba"]LOL. Lems are afraid of the TC. opalman
Teemany reborn
LOL. Lems are afraid of the TC. nimbambaIs that why they attacked his arguments en masse and systematically tore them to shreds? :? I'm confused...
LOL. Lems are afraid of the TC. nimbambaYeah, because taking his post head on and disproving it point by point is a sure sign of fear :roll: Hmmm, anybody wanna take bets on whether we see threads with just as poorly formed arguments as this one started by a low level poster from this thread? Be fair now. TC's views, while biased, are quite logically sound. He says PS3 has a superior hardware. It makes sense because PS3 has cell, blu-ray, motion control, more dedicated servers, and more reliability. He says because of the superior hardware, PSN is better than LIVE. Well, if it is true that PS3 has a better hardware, then only PSN (not LIVE) can take advantage of PS3's hardware. okay teemany/sinanouk/fart_storm
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment