• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why is XBL still the superior online service...

3. Patching is (strangely) better and quicker on PS3

Ok, this is a straight up lie. It took me (no kidding) over 5 hours to update Hot Shots Golf when I first bought it. PSN is spotty in that you never know what you will get. Some games patch in 5 seconds, some in 5 minutes, and some in 5 hours. I know exactly how long every single XBL game is going to take to patch from a launch game to one that released yesterday.
 

Yagharek

Member
Ok, this is a straight up lie. It took me (no kidding) over 5 hours to update Hot Shots Golf when I first bought it. PSN is spotty in that you never know what you will get. Some games patch in 5 seconds, some in 5 minutes, and some in 5 hours. I know exactly how long every single XBL game is going to take to patch from a launch game to one that released yesterday.

Read my edited post below it.

I was referring to system firmware updates only, not title updates.

I will concede my original post was poorly worded, however.
 

Card Boy

Banned
Why? Am I wrong?

I Sony's online offering even close to being as good as MS' offering? The answer is a resounding no.

I have a vita and I still think it's not even close to being as good as MS, the service is too fractured, is still far too clunky and hard to use and the absolutely arse marketplace is still as bad it was when I got my PS3 all those years ago.

Sony still don't have something as simple as telling you the file size of a download until after you've paid, their download list is completely fucked, the search engine isn't as refined as MS' and the less said about layout the better. Add to this, the lack of website store and the constant maintenance shit they pull, they've got a long damn way to go before they even come close to offering something similar to XBL.

And before I forget, trophy synch is also completely fucked if you've played more than 50 games and download your profile onto a new PS3. I've had trophies I've already earnt pop up again when I play a game after a certain period. The whole service screams unprofessional, there's not clear vision for what they want to achieve, it leaves a sour taste in the consumers mouth and it let's MS continue to get away with shitting on their userbase by not making XBLG more competitive/more value for money.

Seriously, if you have nothing more to add that quoting my tag, don't bother posting.

I agree with this post, especially when you say the PSN is too fractured. Im unbiased and don't have an Xbox.
 

NBtoaster

Member
You think the guide and stuff appear magically on the 360? As far as I know you get to do whatever you want with the whole available ram on 360. Wich means you need to spare space at least for the guide.

As I understand it all functions devs are required to support in the 360 OS (CGC, custom soundtracks) is always part of the 32MB the OS uses. To do similar features on PS3 you need to spare RAM for each feature in addition to the 30-50MB the OS already occupies.
 
Read my edited post below it.

I was referring to system firmware updates only, not title updates.

I will concede my original post was poorly worded, however.

For firmware they are actually faster on PSN. The vast majority of PSN firmware never adds any new features though, but the required updates are faster.

Two things:

1. If you have PS+, the PS3 will automatically download and install patches every day in the wee hours of the morning so you don't have to wait before playing a game.
2. Cost of XBL is $60 (yea I know sales etc) if you're never going to have it for more than a year. Cost of it over a console generation is staggeringly expensive, more than what you pay for the console. When viewed that way, it's DEFINITELY not worth it over PSN for me.

So the game patching problem is "fixed" only if you pay Sony an extra $50 a year? What was your second point again?
 

Robot Pants

Member
Steam.

This is coming from someone with a 360, but this generation all you need is a capable PC and a PS3 for gaming enjoyment.

Sure, you'll miss out on Gears and Halo...but, so what?

Not even. The best Gears (Gears 1) is on PC. And it's a better version. MP is way better.


Title updates, for one. It typically goes something like this:

XBOX:
There is a title update for the game you just bought. System automatically logs you out of the service as it downloads and installs the patch. This takes around 10-20 seconds. Game then automatically restarts and you are automatically logged back into the service. You play your game.

PS3:
There is a title update for the game you just bought. System reboots. Your TV looses signal. It begins to download a massive update that takes several minutes. It then proceeds to inform you that it is unzipping and installing the update. The system restarts and your TV looses signal again before returning to the same install screen. Apparently, there is another update to download and install. Repeat this process one or two more times. Finally, you play your game.


Also:
DEMO IS DOWNLOADING.
DEMO IS DONE DOWNLOADING.
DEMO IS NOW INSTALLING
OK YOU CAN PLAY DEMO NOW.
 

Mik2121

Member
The paid version is definitely better, indeed. But when it comes to the free version, PSN wins if only because it has one very important feature that Live doesn't... online play.
I believe that's a fairly big detail :)

As for Nintendo, I don't think it's even worth discussing that now. Hopefully WiiU has something better though :/
 
The paid version is definitely better, indeed. But when it comes to the free version, PSN wins if only because it has one very important feature that Live doesn't... online play.
I believe that's a fairly big detail :)

As for Nintendo, I don't think it's even worth discussing that now. Hopefully WiiU has something better though :/

Right, you can't compare the two because one is free and the other not. If Sony starts charging next gen then we will see how the service compares but until then, every flaw of PSN can be forgiven because of the price of entry.
 

Mik2121

Member
Sony want to but they can't. I would live to hear why they can't?
Because its one of their 'selling' points. They might have PSN+ since day 1, but charge for online play and leave the free online play bullet point to Nintendo alone? Hardly doubt that...
 
Why? Am I wrong?

I Sony's online offering even close to being as good as MS' offering? The answer is a resounding no.

I have a vita and I still think it's not even close to being as good as MS, the service is too fractured, is still far too clunky and hard to use and the absolutely arse marketplace is still as bad it was when I got my PS3 all those years ago.

Sony still don't have something as simple as telling you the file size of a download until after you've paid, their download list is completely fucked, the search engine isn't as refined as MS' and the less said about layout the better. Add to this, the lack of website store and the constant maintenance shit they pull, they've got a long damn way to go before they even come close to offering something similar to XBL.

And before I forget, trophy synch is also completely fucked if you've played more than 50 games and download your profile onto a new PS3. I've had trophies I've already earnt pop up again when I play a game after a certain period. The whole service screams unprofessional, there's not clear vision for what they want to achieve, it leaves a sour taste in the consumers mouth and it let's MS continue to get away with shitting on their userbase by not making XBLG more competitive/more value for money.

Seriously, if you have nothing more to add that quoting my tag, don't bother posting.

I'd agree with all of this except and add that MS is now falling into the "fractured" territory with the new xbl. The new xbl interface is pretty god damned horrible and was a huge step back in terms of organization.

And the ads. Jesus Christ.

Also, I'd be interested in ps+ except it never goes on sale. The price of xbl doesn't bug me because I can usually get it for 30-35 bucks every time. If I could do that with a retail card for ps+ I'd be one that too.

But they don't do that, because Sony is stupid. Just like how half the features like trophies and the like are half assed because the ps3 OS wasn't designed with them things like that in mind. The Xbox was. Sony didnt care abiut any of that shit until ms started beating them up and taking their lunch money. Sony's arrogance this gen still astounds me.
 
They want to but they can't so they won't.

They already charged for online gaming last gen in Japan. Wouldn't be a new thing for them. They already stated publicly that they lose money on PSN and they can't do that forever. Who knows if they charge next gen. New generations have new rules.
 

tzare

Member
To me, XBL having party chat alone is almost a deal-maker, I use that function every single time I log onto Xbox Live. It's hard to get used to not having it on PSN. I mean sure you can chat inside of games, but a game-independent chat channel should be mandatory.

There's party chat on vita. It is not a psn issue, it is a console os thing. There 360 has the advantage of being built with live in mind. Vita has the same if bot more features than 360, only tainted because of the power saving measures due to its portable nature. Regardingbthe op, yes xbl may have the edge, but not by much, and being a payed service makes it useless for many.
 
I don't know about the US region but last EU Christmas sale, it was 40. That's another thing Sony needs to improve, the differences between region stores. We still don't have SotN here in the EU.
Are there ps+ retail cards that go on sale like live cards? I haven't seen any at retail. If there is and I just missed them, let me know. I'd buy it if it was 30. I don't recall ever seeing a PSN or PS+ card go on sale.
 
While still far superior to PSN, the new Xbox dashboard design in nothing but a disaster in my opinion. There should be no doubt that one offers a far superior online experience. That one is XBL.

I don't care if you're a diehard Sony fan, stop living in denial. XBL just works and it's no secret why. MS just knows software and online networking better than Sony and Nintendo. AND NO...I remember someone in this thread saying that XBL was even superior to current PC offerings. In what way? Things like Steam do everything Xbox Live does FOR FREE. I know Valve is different from Sony or Nintendo, but I feel if Nintendo and Sony keep their services free, they'll never be able to match Xbox Live. I'm also not slammed with ads on Steam telling me to go buy a bag of Doritos or a new Toyota. In fact, I'm brought right to what matters most. The games. Whether it's the store page or my library everything I need is right there.
 
They already charged for online gaming last gen in Japan. Wouldn't be a new thing for them. They already stated publicly that they lose money on PSN and they can't do that forever. Who knows if they charge next gen. New generations have new rules.

They said that back in 2010 when they also said it was likely to change in 2011. They didnt even have PSN+ back then.
 
Are there ps+ retail cards that go on sale like live cards? I haven't seen any at retail. If there is and I just missed them, let me know. I'd buy it if it was 30. I don't recall ever seeing a PSN or PS+ card go on sale.

Nope, afaik 50 is always 50, 20 always 20 etc. (I was lucky because a retail store downtown had a 'buy 2, get the third one free' sale and PSN vouchers were also in that category.) That being said, PS+ is worth it if you're a download enthousiast and spend most of your money on PSN/PS1/PSP games. It's not really worth it if you prefer retail games, those extra functions like cloud saving and automatic updating don't really scream '50 bucks a year!'
 
stopped using my ps3 due do the constant updates that sony keeps rolling out due to their paranoia over piracy on the ps3. And don't get me started on that syncing ps3 trophy nightmare. Only game i bothered to play on it in the last year and a 1/2 is journey.

the 360 update system is fast, it works well and doesn't cause older systems to lock up and die.(I've known at least 5 people whose ps3 is a brick due to a system update crash)
 

snap0212

Member
They already charged for online gaming last gen in Japan. Wouldn't be a new thing for them. They already stated publicly that they lose money on PSN and they can't do that forever. Who knows if they charge next gen. New generations have new rules.
I don't think the market allows them to charge. They're just not in a position to charge for their service and they won't be in that position next gen. They'll maybe even offer the exact same features that Xbox Live Gold does next gen and the service will still be worse than what Microsoft's going to offer.

Xbox Live is more than a bunch of features, it's a coherent and elegant experience. I thought Sony could do the same thing on the Vita, but using it, it just feels so Sony again, which is really disappointing and the main reason why I think they won't be able to release a product that can compete with Live (if they charge for it).

They won't charge anyone for basic online. They'll have something like PS+ on day one and will make sure that you subscribe to their service (everything except online locked behind a paywall). That way, they can still advertise PSN Online Gaming to be free while getting additional money through their PS+ service. Exclusive DLC will be locked behind this paywall as well: PS+ Subscribers get DLC X a month before anyone else. They'll also have an additional service called 'Afrika' where I can upload my Afrika PS3 save game. ;)

Meanwhile, I'm still not willing to pay for Xbox Live Gold but I'm more than willing to pay for PS+. It's just a great service.
 

rCIZZLE

Member
While still far superior to PSN, the new Xbox dashboard design in nothing but a disaster in my opinion. There should be no doubt that one offers a far superior online experience. That one is XBL.

I don't care if you're a diehard Sony fan, stop living in denial. XBL just works and it's no secret why. MS just knows software and online networking better than Sony and Nintendo. AND NO...I remember someone in this thread saying that XBL was even superior to current PC offerings. In what way? Things like Steam do everything Xbox Live does FOR FREE. I know Valve is different from Sony or Nintendo, but I feel if Nintendo and Sony keep their services free, they'll never be able to match Xbox Live. I'm also not slammed with ads on Steam telling me to go buy a bag of Doritos or a new Toyota. In fact, I'm brought right to what matters most. The games. Whether it's the store page or my library everything I need is right there.

Well, PSN has "just worked" for me since I made the switch a couple years ago. The only thing missing is party chat... everything else is basically identical. I don't see how MS reinvests that subscription money to make the service better.

None of the console services are worth a fee.
 
Well, PSN has "just worked" for me since I made the switch a couple years ago. The only thing missing is party chat... everything else is basically identical. I don't see how MS reinvests that subscription money to make the service better.

Downloading, patching, and the installation of games to name a few other things.

I'm a full believer in 99.9% of the time, you truly do get what you pay for in most cases.
 

rCIZZLE

Member
Downloading, patching, and the installation of games to name a few other things.

I'm a full believer in 99.9% of the time, you truly do get what you pay for in most cases.

Downloading can really go either way. I thought patching games had the same cost so it should occur at the same rate. What do you mean by installation of games?

I seriously didn't notice anything when I switched except for party chat. I now have both and can't see even a small difference if I hope between the two.
 
Downloading can really go either way. I thought patching games had the same cost so it should occur at the same rate. What do you mean by installation of games?

I seriously didn't notice anything when I switched except for party chat. I still have both and can't see even a small difference if I hope between the two.

Stuff on the 360 doesnt actually install. You download it and its ready to go. Again not really online service related imo, just the way the consoles handle the file system.
 
Downloading can really go either way. I thought patching games had the same cost so it should occur at the same rate. What do you mean by installation of games?

I seriously didn't notice anything when I switched except for party chat. I still have both and can't see even a small difference if I hope between the two.

The download speeds on PSN are horrible to say the least. The patching of games and firmware updates for PS3 can put one to sleep. Why do they take so long? The installation of those things along with games is some of the worst I've seen. I see they haven't learned much because it works exactly the same on Vita.(I'm sure some will say it's to save battery life)

Not only does it take forever to download the patches, firmware updates, and games, but the installation process is sometimes just as long if not longer is some cases. With XBL, the patching is quick and easy. Same with the games. XBL also installs the patches, dashboard updates, and games for you as they download.
 
I have paid for XBL for 3 years in a row. I probably haven't even used 2 of these years to its full extend. I'm glad my subscription has run out as of today.

XBL IS a very good online service, yes. But the PSN is (imo) just as good and it's free on top of it.
Nintendo's online service...well, we'll see about that, since Nintendo Network is just starting up, but it looks like it'll be almost as good or equal to PSN and therefore XBL.

I won't pay for XBL again, unless I really have the urge to do so. And by that...well, there has to come out at least a new Rock Band game and some awesome fighting game on top of it.

If XBL would at least be quite a lot cheaper (meaning something like 10 to 15 bucks a year instead of 60) I might reconsider it, but since it won't ever be that cheap...yeah well, see the above.
 

dwu8991

Banned
PS3 store prices for Aus gamers is a lot more expensive for the same digitized content US gamers pay. Around 20-50% more expensive !
 

snap0212

Member
The download speeds on PSN are horrible to say the least. .
They're the same on PSN and Xbox Live for me. I'd love to get better speeds on Xbox Live but I've tried everything already and it just won't use more than about 15% of what's possible. I'd love to download my games at full speed but Xbox Live doesn't allow me to do that.
 
I will say this, from a business standpoint it works out well for MS but for consumers the current pay to PLAY system is BS.

Why should anyone have to pay to PLAY a game they've already bought and paid for? The actual gaming part of the service should be free. If you want additional features, then you should have the OPTION to pay for them. Paying more play with your friends and family is crap. MS knows they have Xbox only gamers by the balls. Well, that, and there is a lot of ignorance. If all you know is Xbox and aren't aware that there are alternatives out there that do a lot of the same and do it for free, why wouldn't you keep paying?

I'll also say a lot of the people I know tried to make the switch to PC or PSN and didn't make it but a few weeks and at most a couple months. They're spoiled by the look and feel of XBL. Me personally? I probably won't be paying for XBL ever again if I can help it. PC is all I need right now and next gen consoles would have to do some ultra special to get me to run out and by them.
 

rCIZZLE

Member
The download speeds on PSN are horrible to say the least. The patching of games and firmware updates for PS3 can put one to sleep. Why do they take so long? The installation of those things along with games is some of the worst I've seen. I see they haven't learned much because it works exactly the same on Vita.(I'm sure some will say it's to save battery life)

Not only does it take forever to download the patches, firmware updates, and games, but the installation process is sometimes just as long if not longer is some cases. With XBL, the patching is quick and easy. Same with the games. XBL also installs the patches, dashboard updates, and games for you as they download.

@bold: Eh, slight difference. You act as if it takes an eternity to play any game. Only time patching takes a bit of time is if you're playing an older title that's been patched several times. After it's up to date it doesn't matter. How many games a month do you get for this to be a major time sink? lol

When you get to playing games online, the service is almost identical. I could even say party chat ruined some games... I remember how stupid Gears became when you were able to tell your living teammates everything.
 
They said that back in 2010 when they also said it was likely to change in 2011. They didnt even have PSN+ back then.

I could have sworn on their last financials that they said they were still in red even after putting in the pay for feature service. Even if I'm wrong and they did go in the black on the service in 2010, being in the red for 4 out of 6 years isn't healthy.

There's party chat on vita. It is not a psn issue, it is a console os thing. There 360 has the advantage of being built with live in mind. Vita has the same if bot more features than 360, only tainted because of the power saving measures due to its portable nature. Regardingbthe op, yes xbl may have the edge, but not by much, and being a payed service makes it useless for many.

I still don't understand the power excuse. Why don't these issues go away when the system is plugged into a wall outlet?
 

Farmboy12

Neo Member
If you play fighting games online xbl is far superior. Psn is noticeably more laggy. And don't get me started on having to spend an hour downloading and installlling updates on every new game.
 

tzare

Member
I still don't understand the power excuse. Why don't these issues go away when the system is plugged into a wall outlet?

It is a portable device afterall, so i guess they went safe. I hope they allow customer choice in a future fw update.

/ If you play fighting games online xbl is far superior. Psn is noticeably more laggy. And don't get me started on having to spend an hour downloading and installlling updates on every new game.

Disagree, i ve been playing ssfiv on both systems and experience is just the same.
 
I think Vita currently has the best. I know few here can verify this.

I have a Vita and I can verify that it in fact is one of the worst. You never know when you're actually online, it allows games to block you from ever being online, and there are separate apps for messaging, friends, trophies etc. Not good at all.
 

OverHeat

« generous god »
I have a Vita and I can verify that it in fact is one of the worst. You never know when you're actually online, it allows games to block you from ever being online, and there are separate apps for messaging, friends, trophies etc. Not good at all.
I agree the only thing I love about it is NEAR.
 

rCIZZLE

Member
If you play fighting games online xbl is far superior. Psn is noticeably more laggy. And don't get me started on having to spend an hour downloading and installlling updates on every new game.

The only thing better about fighting games on XBL is more people bought their sticks for 360 so more people. There is definitely not "noticeably more lag" lol.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I don't see why there's a need to catch up, PSN gets the job done just fine and it's free. Not everyone needs party chat and paid online filled to the brim with advertisements.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
The only thing better about fighting games on XBL is more people bought their sticks for 360 so more people. There is definitely not "noticeably more lag" lol.

more people bought sticks for 360 because no one ever considered playing with that d-pad to be a serious option. >_>

iirc, all the numbers we have suggest that ps3 typically gets more sales for fighters. [for the sf games anyway]
 

Farmboy12

Neo Member
The only thing better about fighting games on XBL is more people bought their sticks for 360 so more people. There is definitely not "noticeably more lag" lol.

I own both and ive played the same games on both over the same connection. I also have friends who experienced the same thing. Psn in my experience is without question laggier.
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
Xbox 360 supercharges my internet connection. I don't know how it does it.
It's weird, I have a 360 s and a slim PS3, both with wireless N compatibility, but iPlayer, 4OD, Netflix and whatnot stream much better on my xbox.

But to answer OP, I think both answers are correct, MS understand the market more, and have a much larger subscription pot to fund the running of it.

Edit: vindication from above post. What's the deal with that? They should both perform the same. I guess the aerial is better in the xbox or something.
 

tzare

Member
I own both and ive played the same games on both over the same connection. I also have friends who experienced the same thing. Psn in my experience is without question laggier.
your experience is just yours, does not mean it is for eveyone. I have mine and it is just the same, and i can say so for a number of friends.
 
I don't see why there's a need to catch up, PSN gets the job done just fine and it's free. Not everyone needs party chat and paid online filled to the brim with advertisements.

If you barely play online sure. Barebones is fine. But for multiplayer gamers who have friends in real life they play online with, these social features like party chat are deadly important.
 
There's party chat on vita. It is not a psn issue, it is a console os thing. There 360 has the advantage of being built with live in mind. Vita has the same if bot more features than 360, only tainted because of the power saving measures due to its portable nature. Regardingbthe op, yes xbl may have the edge, but not by much, and being a payed service makes it useless for many.

More features than XBL? Care to expand on this, as I can only think of Near and beacons on XBL is pretty much the same thing, but nowhere near as well done or as detailed.

Vita is a baby step in the right direction, but it's still too fractured/lacks the unified/connected feel that MS have nailed with XBL.

I log into XBL and I feel part of a community, one button press and I can see what my friends are playing, when I play a certain game, I'm told if someone is also playing, I can message anyone, even if I'm gaming/watching a film/whatever. PSN doesn't offer any of that, there's a disconnect, there's no sense of community. Maybe because Sony invested HOME to provide it? I don't know, but that's what they need to work on next gen.

@RoninChaos.

You're absolutely right, but to counter that, MS does have the online store and you can easily bypass the tabs by using the guide menu. I'm not trying to excuse the piss poor layout (which I don't particularly like), but there are workarounds. The same can't be said for Sony's service.

This wasn't intended as a mock Sony/Nintendo's online service thread (which is what I assume some people think based on my tag), I genuinely want one or both to bring their AAA game next gen and make MS sweat so they'll either drop the price of XBL or make it more competitive/value for money. Some of MS' decisions make me hate the platform, but I'm invested in their service and it's not easy to just abandon them when the competition does such a pisspoor job of their online offerings in comparison.
 

snap0212

Member
I own both and ive played the same games on both over the same connection. I also have friends who experienced the same thing. Psn in my experience is without question laggier.
According to you, you don't even own a PS3. In multiple posts in different Vita Threads you complained about not being able to download some PSP games because you don't own a PS3.

However, in a PS Move Thread you complained about not liking Move because you have to recalibrate it, and in the Download Speeds Thread you said that you have to wire it to get okay speeds. Hmm.
 

Vinci

Danish
Because online is, like, MS's thing. It's what the company understands and does well; as such, it's what it pumps the most money and effort into. MS's knowledge of online is its competitive advantage against Sony and Nintendo. Should either of the other two really surpass MS in this area, it would ultimately endanger all the time MS has spent developing Live.

Basically, Sony and Nintendo have other priorities.
 
Top Bottom