XBL or PSN?

XBL

but ps3 owners are gona give u the"do u wana pay to play, or play 4 free"

Wow, what a creative topic.

Your very good at starting discussions.

While PSN in terms of matchmaking speed has got better over the last few months,

I will still opt for XBL.

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

dhjohns

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

yes, xbl is better designed and flows easily from in game to messaging....but my principles say "your not giving Microsoft money for nothing" so i go with the free and dam good service

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

dude, thats not a fair comparison. you and i know it has dedicated servers.... you cant say "no lag" when were only looking at R:fom and warhawk.

rb6 has its fair share of lag, and you get a list of games and ping for player on xbl, psn doesn't

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Sayin live can't handle a game like warhawk is just stupid because PDZ was up to 32 players online and the new frontlines fuel of war goes up to 32 players online.

Edit: I forgot to mention that MOHH2 can go up to 32 players online and nintendo doesn't even have a system like psn or xbl. So i think XBL is capable of handling 32 or 40 players online at once. That argument is not valid anymore.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

EmperorSupreme

"I bet you had fun playing those AAAEs during christmas"

Everyone can play that game, so stop.

Next, what do you mean it can't handle games like Warhawk? The amount of players? I'm pretty sure there was a 50 player game on the xbox and ps2.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

II-FBIsniper-II

"I bet you had fun playing those AAAEs during christmas"

Everyone can play that game, so stop.

Next, what do you mean it can't handle games like Warhawk? The amount of players? I'm pretty sure there was a 50 player game on the xbox and ps2.

cows are new to online shooters, they still think More=better.......sad really, Black hawk down on the xbox had 50 players online. that doesnt make it the best game EVAA!!!! but according to the cow logic, it does.......

stick to your Jrpgs please.

XBL

psn is good but XBL is much more organized and i dont feel alone like feel when im on ps3

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

sirk1264

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Sayin live can't handle a game like warhawk is just stupid because PDZ was up to 32 players online and the new frontlines fuel of war goes up to 32 players online.

Edit: I forgot to mention that MOHH2 can go up to 32 players online and nintendo doesn't even have a system like psn or xbl. So i think XBL is capable of handling 32 or 40 players online at once. That argument is not valid anymore.

forgive my novice knowledge but isn't it harder for newer game to have more players, as the games are more complicated meaning faster Internet speeds are needed?

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Can't handle Warhawk? Do you have a link? Also, I stopped playing Warhawk because it was a disaster at first. I never leveled up and had trouble with some matches. I am sure it is fixed by now, but don't get too carried away. You can have your preference, you prefer PSN congrats. I prefer XBL. Is that OK?

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Umm are you trying to say you can't play XBLA games without being online? I think you might need to check your facts on that.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

sirk1264

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Sayin live can't handle a game like warhawk is just stupid because PDZ was up to 32 players online and the new frontlines fuel of war goes up to 32 players online.

Edit: I forgot to mention that MOHH2 can go up to 32 players online and nintendo doesn't even have a system like psn or xbl. So i think XBL is capable of handling 32 or 40 players online at once. That argument is not valid anymore.

I guess you right, but I tried PDZ and it was a lagfest. I do agree with Nintendo though. I've been horribly disappointed in them. Committed to online my a**... A fair warning to all gamers who have yet to purchase a Wii... Wii does not have online play.

@Unreal_393 I didn't say more = better, but it can sure be fun. Warhawk is best on a big map with max players. That's when you see people using all the Tanks, turrets, jeeps, Warhawks etc.... So for big online games like Warhawk more players does = better, but if it's not your thing you can always play with less. You have that option too.

I can play games online on PSN for free.... Im happy niall077

And that is the only thing PSN has going for it. For gamers like myselves that can afford $1 a week, XBL is just fine.

[QUOTE="sirk1264"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

hip-hop-cola2

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Sayin live can't handle a game like warhawk is just stupid because PDZ was up to 32 players online and the new frontlines fuel of war goes up to 32 players online.

Edit: I forgot to mention that MOHH2 can go up to 32 players online and nintendo doesn't even have a system like psn or xbl. So i think XBL is capable of handling 32 or 40 players online at once. That argument is not valid anymore.

forgive my novice knowledge but isn't it harder for newer game to have more players, as the games are more complicated meaning faster Internet speeds are needed?

If you want to play without lag in an online game you need a good internet connection. As long as you have a broadband connection you will be fine in playing online for games of today and tomorrow. Eventually though years down the road, broadband will be outdated as technology is constantly advancing. The future consoles might require a connection faster than broadband but broadband internet is good for the consoles of today.

[QUOTE="sirk1264"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Umm no thanks, I will go ahead and pay for the service. I feel it is worth it. There is no comparable one on consoles. XBL is by far the superior choice for console gamers.

How is Live comparable?? It can't even handle games like Warhawk on PSN, it's not capable of it.

Keep paying and then when Nintendo and Sony decide to charge you and MS ups the price let's see how you feel.

Also I prefer PSN where I can play my downloaded games without being logged in and I can install them on multiple machines if I choose. I bet Christmas was real fun with Live.

Sayin live can't handle a game like warhawk is just stupid because PDZ was up to 32 players online and the new frontlines fuel of war goes up to 32 players online.

Edit: I forgot to mention that MOHH2 can go up to 32 players online and nintendo doesn't even have a system like psn or xbl. So i think XBL is capable of handling 32 or 40 players online at once. That argument is not valid anymore.

I guess you right, but I tried PDZ and it was a lagfest. I do agree with Nintendo though. I've been horribly disappointed in them. Committed to online my a**... A fair warning to all gamers who have yet to purchase a Wii... Wii does not have online play.

@Unreal_393 I didn't say more = better, but it can sure be fun. Warhawk is best on a big map with max players. That's when you see people using all the Tanks, turrets, jeeps, Warhawks etc.... So for big online games like Warhawk more players does = better, but if it's not your thing you can always play with less. You have that option too.

From what i hear frontlines is going to have dedicated servers. PDZ wasn't a lag fest for me. I even hosted some games. I also hear that MOHH2 runs well for 32 players online and no centralized online system. But thats from people i talk to. I've also experienced lag in ps3 games like resistance. I wasn't lagging but i've seen people lagging real bad and skipping across the screen. You are going to have laggers in any game because some people play with a shotty internet connection. p2p games suffer from this because if one person lags then the other people lag too and the game suffers. i think with dedicated servers only that person lags and the rest of the game is still playing fluidly. My experience of course expands to UT3. Non dedicated servers can lag alot but dedicated servers don't really lag at all.

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

Cows, if you never experienced XBL...don't bash it. XBL craps over PSN, even if paid for. PSN can't compare to XBL in any possible way, even if its free.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

bigevil_rashek

Cows, if you never experienced XBL...don't bash it. XBL craps over PSN, even if paid for. PSN can't compare to XBL in any possible way, even if its free.

iv seen and experienced xbl. IMO i don't think its fair to say "craps all over" when what your getting is something which flows better.... yes, its far more integrated, but its not light years away from psn like people say it is.

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

XBL.

I get free live away so......its all good.

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

Phantom_Menace

So to sum up, due to principle you give the edge to PSN. :lol: OK, due to ease of use, the ability to chat anywhere (while doing anything), and not to mention cross-game invites, just to name a few, I will go with XBL.

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

Phantom_Menace

I think what people fail to do is to define the term "play online". Playing onilne totally includes some of those features that XBL has that PSN doesn't. The fact that people take many of those features for granted says alot about how well-integrated they are into the service.

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

dhjohns

So to sum up, due to principle you give the edge to PSN. :lol: OK, due to ease of use, the ability to chat anywhere (while doing anything), and not to mention cross-game invites, just to name a few, I will go with XBL.

So, you're essentially paying $50 a year to play games online and to use MSN messenger on Live. Great, you pay for two free services anywhere else.

While not organized nearly as well, PSN is easy enough to use. And with Live's apparent stagnation, I could see PSN eventually getting the services Live has, taking away what ever "advantage" it has.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

Phantom_Menace

So to sum up, due to principle you give the edge to PSN. :lol: OK, due to ease of use, the ability to chat anywhere (while doing anything), and not to mention cross-game invites, just to name a few, I will go with XBL.

So, you're essentially paying $50 a year to play games online and to use MSN messenger on Live. Great, you pay for two free services anywhere else.

While not organized nearly as well, PSN is easy enough to use. And with Live's apparent stagnation, I could see PSN eventually getting the services Live has, taking away what ever "advantage" it has.

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

VoodooHak

I think what people fail to do is to define the term "play online". Playing onilne totally includes some of those features that XBL has that PSN doesn't. The fact that people take many of those features for granted says alot about how well-integrated they are into the service.

Very well stated.

I think what people fail to do is to define the term "play online". Playing onilne totally includes some of those features that XBL has that PSN doesn't. The fact that people take many of those features for granted says alot about how well-integrated they are into the service.VoodooHak

I'll admit, since I don't play games online much at all, a lot of the reason to have Gold is lost on me. I get everything I need with Silver. Extra messaging (in game messaging really only makes sense and is useful if you play online anyway) doesn't mean anything to me. If I want to chat, I'll boot up a messenger on my laptop.

PSN free, less lag, support for bigger games like Warhawk and Resistance.

Go XBL if you want, but I'm against MS trying to make paying to play with your friends and family the industry standard. Imagine if in the future you have a Nintendo fee, a Sony fee, a Steam fee, a Live fee, etc... That's what MS wants and thats what will happen if Gamers support this Microsoft initiative. Keep it free! Boycott Live.

EmperorSupreme

OR! Imagine a barebones online community where it costs nothing but you get hte samething in return. A place where gamers come together to play online but NEVER talk to one another because of a lack of headset and decent online community. A place where.......oh wait that's ALREADY happening with PSN. BOYCOTT PSN!

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

dhjohns

So to sum up, due to principle you give the edge to PSN. :lol: OK, due to ease of use, the ability to chat anywhere (while doing anything), and not to mention cross-game invites, just to name a few, I will go with XBL.

So, you're essentially paying $50 a year to play games online and to use MSN messenger on Live. Great, you pay for two free services anywhere else.

While not organized nearly as well, PSN is easy enough to use. And with Live's apparent stagnation, I could see PSN eventually getting the services Live has, taking away what ever "advantage" it has.

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

You thinks incorrectly. But that's to be expected here.

Enjoy paying while I'll get everything I need with Silver.

PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol: dhjohns

Bingo! Right in the blowhole!

I can play games online on PSN for free.... Im happy niall077

agreed...

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

Phantom_Menace

You are REALLY missing out on an excellent experience and new way to play. I think you should at least give it a 3 month tryout. Playing with your friends at their house or yours is cool but sometimes you just can't or they provide zero challenge that's when you take it to the max and face MILLIONS of gamers from all over the world in all types of games and make new friends.

XBL with by a landslide. I mean everyone knows it has a fee but at this current rate you just can't trust Sony. The only thing PSN has going for itself is that it's a free service but you just get this slight sense that when Home and the PSN gets mature over time, then Sony will somehow spin that and start charging users a fee.

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

dhjohns

You thinks incorrectly. But that's to be expected here.

Enjoy paying while I'll get everything I need with Silver.

Not really. Expect away but your comments and "analysis" of XBL shows your clear lack of familiarity with it. Especially if you think PSN is even close to it. And your "stagnant" comment was priceless.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol: thegame1980

Bingo! Right in the blowhole!

Again. Its the feeling that I'm not getting anything for my money. When I can do the same thing on PC or PSN for nothing extra.

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

thegame1980

You are REALLY missing out on an excellent experience and new way to play. I think you should at least give it a 3 month tryout. Playing with your friends at their house or yours is cool but sometimes you just can't or they provide zero challenge that's when you take it to the max and face MILLIONS of gamers from all over the world in all types of games and make new friends.

Multiplayer has never been a big feature to me. The only games I really play online are RTS, and mostly Starcraft. I'm not much of a FPS fan; I'll play the occasional, but not as a rule. RPGs is my genre of choice and those don't usually come with an online multiplayer opton.

I'm sure if I played more FPS I'd get a lot more out of it.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]I think what people fail to do is to define the term "play online". Playing onilne totally includes some of those features that XBL has that PSN doesn't. The fact that people take many of those features for granted says alot about how well-integrated they are into the service.Phantom_Menace

I'll admit, since I don't play games online much at all, a lot of the reason to have Gold is lost on me. I get everything I need with Silver. Extra messaging (in game messaging really only makes sense and is useful if you play online anyway) doesn't mean anything to me. If I want to chat, I'll boot up a messenger on my laptop.

Considering main purpose of XBL Gold is to play online, this explains why you don't find value in it. And that's fine.

But for those of us that DO like to play online, XBL Gold is the best service that can be found on a console.

XBL any day of the week. Or at least until I can organize an eight player game of Burnout (or any other game) while me and the other players are all playing different games through ingame voicechat.

The ability to do that in itself is worth 5 bucks a month to me.

XBL = Complete

PSN = Incomplete

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

dhjohns

You thinks incorrectly. But that's to be expected here.

Enjoy paying while I'll get everything I need with Silver.

Not really. Expect away but your comments and "analysis" of XBL shows your clear lack of familiarity with it. Especially if you think PSN is even close to it. And your "stagnant" comment was priceless.

Familiarity and not using are completely different things.

I use and have XBL. I may have not invesitgated it thoroughly, but I have used it quite a bit.

As for stagnant. Unless there's suddenly been new features added recently that I somehow don't know about (which could happen) Live hasn't done much in terms of improving. While the organization of Live is better than PSN, even that could be done better.

I use my ps3 for online gaming. Its free, my friends have ps3's and it does all I need, with very little lag.

I tried XBL but saw no advantage over PSN that warranted £30 a year, when I could spand that money on another game to play online on the ps3.