Support NeoGAF

[Speedymanic]

Who are they losing?, tell me, show me proof that devs are abandoning ship from PSN/SEN due to PSN+ killing their games or cutting them out of their profits
Every week XBL/SEN have close to the same line-ups

The only thing I know about PSN+ as a consumer, is it's doing it's job, it keeps me hooked
I don't care for developers/publishers and how they feel, nor should you
I have no clue why you are so fascinated about a party in the scheme of things you have no reason to worry about

SEN must be doing something right, that we are getting new games as free, hell fucking EA gave us Shank 2 & NFSU2 FREE < E FUCKING A
You know Shank 2 will have DLC, it's coming
NFSU, you get the basic game, have you seen the DLC for it, you know some gamers might get enticed and buy it on a whim
(2 DLC Packs, $9.99 Each)

Listen you should stop worrying what Sony's business plans are and the future outlook for what it is doing
You should worry about what June's content is going to be first, free
What the discounts are
What advantages you can come to expect from it
That is all

No one should be going ZOMG! Sony those Monsters, giving away something Free 100% discount, how could they, 20% I understand, but 100%, GODDAMIT Sony, why won't you take my money... Give me a fucking break

Please learn to read my posts. I suggested they may lose developer support in the long term.

Shift 2 is old, and Shank 2 isn't getting DLC.

Listen, you should worry about the long term viability of Sony's network. They could lose developer support, they might not be able to fund improvements if they keep buying these 'free' games for a portion of their userbase, etc.

Do you want another gen of Sony having a pisspoor online service because their priorities lie elsewhere? I sure as hell don't. Or are you one of those people who thinks Sony's current offerings are on par with XBL?

The thread title should be really, "Why My Paid Online Service Still Rocks, While Your Free Shit Sucks/Stinks, Here's No Proof, This Is Why"

Also have you realized how many fucking Trophy Whore(s) Collectors/Grabbers have been caught with the PSN+ net

Go to the monthly dedicate trophy/cheevs thread, most who never platinum shit, meaning invest time in a game to full check list completion have recently popping into the thread and saying "Oh hey I got such and such due to PSN+, should I get the sequel/prequel/DLC/Expansion/etc."

So right there Mr. Freelance, your ZOMG!, How is Sony and the Funky Bunch making money?

Calm down, take a few deep breathes or something.

Also, links?

 

[Gattsu25]

I can't even say if it is the best on consoles because the games that I played on XBL have all had the worst audiences. I auto-muted everyone, rejected all friend requests, and did not open any text/voice messages. I found that navigating the convoluted marketplace was more of a chore on XBL than any other recent online store I can think of...even iTunes makes more sense. I no longer use any of the video streaming services on XBL. Outside of accidentally turning on my XBox when I meant to grab the 360 controller connected to my PC, I don't think I've ever actually used my 360 since before Christmas. I used to use XBL to get some decent indie games but even the latest round of games (including Fez, a game I have been looking forward to for years) is not enough to convince me to buy more MS points and invest in using the system anymore.


Still, I can't even compare the XBL experience to the PSN (or whatever it's called now; edit: looks like it is still called PSN..I thought they renamed it to PSE of something..) since the only thing online service I consistently used on that was Ad Hoc Party.

As far as I'm concerned, XBL just very well may be the best online service on console, but that is akin to saying that Transformers III was the best of the series when it came to latent robot racism (I don't know if this is actually true).

 

[WrenchNinja]

Your concern is noted.

 

[snap0212]

Let's say they do give developers a good rate of return for giving games away for free, that means Sony is left out of pocket and means they don't have enough to invest in the network to advance/improve it.

It's lose/lose. If devs get enough money, Sony can't have much left to invest and cover costs, if devs don't get enough and it impacts sale across PSN, both devs lose and Sony lose as there's less revenue and less motivation for developers to release games on the network.

There's only so much money available, they can't be giving developers a good rate of return and investing in the network.

The fact that devs and publishers participate in the program proves that it's worth it for them. Yes, we as gamers don't see the amount of money that the publishers/devs get but it's safe to just assume it's enough and a good deal for them.

PSN is also improving and we can see it. They add new services (Amazon instant just recently) and are also doing stuff on the back end of things (enabling CGC on Vita, for example). It's not just SCE money that's being used for their networks, there's also Sony Music and Sony Pictures as well. Another revenue stream is Home, which surprisingly is loved by many people and many people spend lots of money there. Just load up Home on your PS3 and walk around a bit – some people are crazy.

 

[electroshockwave]

The main things I prefer on 360 are because of the OS (in-game soundtrack, cross-game party chat and being able to switch profiles without quitting a game). Their absence on PS3 has more to do with Sony not thinking of these things from the offset and nothing to do with whether or not you pay for an online service.

 

[Joni]

Let's say they do give developers a good rate of return for giving games away for free, that means Sony is left out of pocket and means they don't have enough to invest in the network to advance/improve it.
.

No, Sony doesn't lose if they don't profit from Plus. Plus is binding you to the console. Time you are playing on the PS3 is time you aren't using any other consoles. It is the same reason why some consoles are sold with a loss: it is not about quick profit.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Please learn to read my posts. I suggested they may lose developer support in the long term.

How can you say that without bringing proof, you're just ASSuming to get your point across, seriously
You can't go well they must be doing something wrong, how can they get away with this shit, why cant my preferred offer such service, yet they can
I think it's a slipper slope aren't you scared, fuck PSN+, support devs by paying full in price, BYAAAHHH!

Listen, you should worry about the long term viability of Sony's network. They could lose developer support, they might not be able to fund improvements if they keep buying these 'free' games for a portion of their userbase, etc.

Sony started this program in 2010, it is working out very well for them, and the developers at large, because the service is getting better, not worse
You should worry about your MS and how they charge $60, and still haven't thought up of XBL+, and try to make their customers be more happy and stick with them
Sony is using it as a tactic, keep the player hooked, keep them coming back for more, many miss steps where taken to get to this point

Do you want another gen of Sony having a piss poor online service because their priorities lie elsewhere? I sure as hell don't. Or are you one of those people who thinks Sony's current offerings are on par with XBL?

Sony is hardware first, not software, they're learning, but they're adapting slowly, the only thing is the work in progress should have been fleshed out way before, but it's happening as we go along
Sony isn't NA centric such as MS is, they knew synergy and grabbing the market share through a service oriented system was better than grabbing gamers with bullet point exclusives
Sony added PSN+ as feature to enhance their system, I have no clue how you are coming to the conclusion it is a detrimental thing

Sony's real priority right now is to get the goddamn interface right, build upon this, and keep at it, if they stop, it will be considered a "Loss"

I'm no Sony White Knight, but your baseless accusations with no merit, and just keep repeating the same ol' stuff about how Sony is losing w/o even knowing how in the blue fuck are they losing

 

[Pandaman]

Let's say they do give developers a good rate of return for giving games away for free, that means Sony is left out of pocket and means they don't have enough to invest in the network to advance/improve it.

...

I cannot fathom how special you must be to have reached the conclusion that sony [the one offering the subscription service!] is losing money on psn+.

 

[Uno Venova]

Speedy is good at what he does.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Calm down, take a few deep breathes or something.

Also, links?

Calm down?

I'm calm, I have no clue why you are trying to put it like I'm in some Rage mode

Just look @ GAF first page, I'm not your little errand boy, you're a big boy, search is there for a reason

 

[Basch]

The main things I prefer on 360 are because of the OS (in-game soundtrack, cross-game party chat and being able to switch profiles without quitting a game). There absence on PS3 has more to do with Sony not thinking of these things from the offset and nothing to do with whether or not you pay for an online service.

This. I actually don't care which is better quite honestly. They're both nice and they both get the job done. Nintendo on the other hand...

 

[Elvin Atombender]

Let's say they do give developers a good rate of return for giving games away for free, that means Sony is left out of pocket and means they don't have enough to invest in the network to advance/improve it.

It's lose/lose. If devs get enough money, Sony can't have much left to invest and cover costs, if devs don't get enough and it impacts sale across PSN, both devs lose and Sony lose as there's less revenue and less motivation for developers to release games on the network.

There's only so much money available, they can't be giving developers a good rate of return and investing in the network.

I don't know how many PS+ subscribers Sony have but how can you be sure that they are losing money if they give the developers a good deal? A lot of developers obviously think they are getting a good deal or they wouldn't participate.

How can you be sure it's not a win/win situation without having any numbers?

 

[Keikoku]

Because their competition sucks.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

The thread title should be really, "Why My Paid Online Service Still Rocks, While Your Free Shit Sucks/Stinks, Here's No Proof, This Is Why"

It goes both ways, and this thread is exactly the same as many similar ones we've had in the past. No consensus has ever been reached and it never will be since both approaches obviously have many supporters and neither of them is inherently right or wrong.

 

[Gattsu25]

I don't know how many PS+ subscribers Sony have but how can you be sure that they are losing money if they give the developers a good deal? A lot of developers obviously think they are getting a good deal or they wouldn't participate.

How can you be sure it's not a win/win situation without having any numbers?

Dude, calm down. Take a breather. Quit being so angry.




Did I do that correctly? That's what people are supposed to do when someone calls the OP out on saying something without a source or numbers to back it up, right?

 

[Stinkles]

Really , XBOX Live !?

First, the dashboard is pure garbage, I just played Halo Reach after a year because I was using my roommate's 360, what the hell happened to the dashboard!? it used to be simple and used to be all about Gaming, now it is all about Ads X Ads for movies, services, TV, and you had to go all that trouble to launch a game, such a horrible greedy company, comparing it to the PS3's simple and unique dashboard.

Oh, Vita's Online and OS is the superior in my opinion by far.

Honestly I have no idea what experience you're talking about. When I turn on my 360, the first item is whatever game is in the disc drive. Beneath that, there's a QuickStart option to play whatever you played last, games, music, movies etc. In chronological order. If I want to play something else, I can select 'games' and scroll alphabetically to my game. The experience you're describing doesn't gel with mine.

 

[Boss Man]

Did I do that correctly? That's what people are supposed to do when someone calls the OP out on saying something without a source or numbers to back it up, right?

Calm down man, it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Gattsu25]

Calm down man, it's not that big of a deal.

I've gotta say, you have one of the best avatars I've seen in this thread

 

[bangai-o]

Sony should just use Android as the os.

 

[Speedymanic]

The fact that devs and publishers participate in the program proves that it's worth it for them. Yes, we as gamers don't see the amount of money that the publishers/devs get but it's safe to just assume it's enough and a good deal for them.

PSN is also improving and we can see it. They add new services (Amazon instant just recently) and are also doing stuff on the back end of things (enabling CGC on Vita, for example). It's not just SCE money that's being used for their networks, there's also Sony Music and Sony Pictures as well. Another revenue stream is Home, which surprisingly is loved by many people and many people spend lots of money there. Just load up Home on your PS3 and walk around a bit – some people are crazy.

I wouldn't say PSN is improving all the time. I doubt Sony even had a hand in releasing the Amazon app.

I thought about HOME, but wrote it off based on the fact that it's rarely mentioned by anyone, including Sony.

No, Sony doesn't lose if they don't profit from Plus. Plus is binding you to the console. Time you are playing on the PS3 is time you aren't using any other consoles. It is the same reason why some consoles are sold with a loss: it is not about quick profit.

A fair point, but I'm not sure how you can claim they don't if they profit from PS+.

...

I cannot fathom how special you must be to have reached the conclusion that sony [the one offering the subscription service!] is losing money on psn+.

Another one who needs to learn to read. where did I claim they were losing? I suggested they might be losing money by giving developers a good rate of return in exchange for offering games for free.

Calm down?

I'm calm, I have no clue why you are trying to put it like I'm in some Rage mode

Just look @ GAF first page, I'm not your little errand boy, you're a big boy, search is there for a reason

Huh, I apologize. Your posts read like you were becoming increasingly angry.

If you're unwilling to provide links, don't bring up examples and don't become aggressive when asked for links.

I don't know how many PS+ subscribers Sony have but how can you be sure that they are losing money if they give the developers a good deal? A lot of developers obviously think they are getting a good deal or they wouldn't participate.

How can you be sure it's not a win/win situation without having any numbers?

Finite amount of resources (money)?

Not everyone will sign up for 12 months. Credit to Sony for offering a quarterly sub though.

Anyway, we're going off topic, so let's get back to talking about online infrastructure, etc.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Sony should just use Android as the os.

No, I'm sorry, Just No

They're trying to protect their network/infrastructure

Can we get them to give us a streamlined UI first before we go dropping OS's just cause

 

[jonno394]

I'm not much of a competitive gamer, the only game I ever play online are the various Fifa titles, therefore imo a subscription based online service is not something I would invest in.

If PSN utilized a subscription model like that of LIVE when the PS4 launches I would just stick to the offline multi/singleplayer experiences.

Out of the three services thou, my experience with PSN has been the best, mostly due to the fact it is free and I have used it the most ahead of Live and the paltry nintendo offerings.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Huh, I apologize. Your posts read like you were becoming increasingly angry.

If you're unwilling to provide links, don't bring up examples and don't become aggressive when asked for links.
.

It's on the first fucking page, why should I link it to you, if you can't take my word for it, then go find the thread, and call me out on it if I'm lying

It's unbelievable how hard you are trying to get your point across

Sony is doing fine, devs/pubs working with Sony are doing fine, you know why?, cause every week new shit is still being released on it's platform
PSN+ is a cool service feature they offer, as a gamer it binds me to them, I wouldn't give a flying fuck how they got Game A or Game C for me as "Free" content
All I care is the $50 I spent for the service, does this content given to me more of a + or - rating, last 2 months have been fucking sensational

 

[cnizzle06]

If anything good has come from this, I think Sony will have learned from their OS mistakes going forward. Still, Microsoft has a bit of an advantage being primarily a software company. I'm honestly fine with the PS3's interface for the most part. It's simple and elegant. I just feel like cross-game chat, party systems, and universal background music etc. would make it stand out more. It just lacks fluidity on the OS level.

 

[bangai-o]

No, I'm sorry, Just No

They're trying to protect their network/infrastructure

Can we get them to give us a streamlined UI first before we go dropping OS's just cause

Sony makes great hardware. but they are lagging on the software end. Just let google handle it.

 

[GraveRobberX]

If you think PSN+ is crazy, go check out Onlive, those motherfuckers over there are B-A-N-A-N-A-S

I got Batman Arkham Asylum for $0.99, Divinity II $0.80
They have a service called Playpack, $9.99/mo, and like 30+ games free to play, some are hella' recent
Now tell me oh wise one, how on earth are dev/pubs making money off that?
If Sony is doing only 1-2 games per month, Onlive is straight up Murdering and Pillaging the ever living shit out of the hypothesis you bring up

 

[Pandaman]

Another one who needs to learn to read. where did I claim they were losing? I suggested they might be losing money by giving developers a good rate of return in exchange for offering games for free.

do you actually understand what a good rate of return is?

its a couple bucks. maybe. depending on when your product went up.

 

[Speedymanic]

If you think PSN+ is crazy, go check out Onlive, those motherfuckers over there are crazy

I got Batman Arkham Asylum for $0.99, Divinity II $0.80
They have a service called Playpack, $9.99/mo, and like 30+ games free to play, some are hella' recent
Now tell me oh wise one, how on earth are dev/pubs making money off that?
If Sony is doing only 1-2 games per month, Onlive is straight up Murdering and Pillaging the ever living shit out of the hypothesis you bring up

Yup, not angry.

do you actually understand what a good rate of return is?

its a couple bucks. maybe. depending on when your product went up.

Debatable, but fair enough, we've deviated enough from the topic at hand.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Yup, not angry.

??? That's it?

 

[GraveRobberX]

I still want to know what this thread is all about

What is the end resolution Speedymanic is looking for

Someone to go, "OMG Speedy I've seen the light, Sony is spiraling out of control, they're ramming their ship into that iceberg of DOOM & GLOOM and are gonna go down with the ship, you're courageous words has led me to the lifeboat that is XBL and to the new safe haven that is the Island of Microsoft"

 

[Gameboy415]

I'm not much of an online gamer so I can't really comment on which service is better for gaming, although the few games I do play online run great on PS3/Wii/3DS.

However, I think it's absurd that I would have to pay for XBOX Live in order to access video apps like Netflix, Hulu, etc. when I can access them on my PS3, Wii, & 3DS (Netflix) without paying a monthly/annual fee to Sony or Nintendo.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

I still want to know what this thread is all about

This thread is about people defending company A and when company A is in knee deep shit, they drag other companies down. MS is now company A. Sony has better game and subscription offers than MS and some of the hardcore defenders still deny that, saying that free games and discounts are a bad thing. Speedy doesn't even have an opinion about Onlive, he just said U MAD.

 

[Duke Togo]

This thread has shown me the objective truth about online services. Thank you to everybody involved.

 

[fluffydelusions]

Depends on a persons needs really. If you don't care about any of the XBL apps, arcade titles, xgame chat, beacons, UI etc etc then SEN, Nintendo network are for you perhaps. I still hate MS for getting rid of 1vs100

 

[Combichristoffersen]

I still want to know what this thread is all about

Filthy communists trying to spread Sony propaganda to undermine the freedom and democracy represented by Microsoft's capitalism.

Spoiler

MS has a better online service because they've been dealing with software and networking for nearly 40 years, while Sony didn't really think ahead about online services and integration when they made the PS3. Why do we even need 5 pages to establish this fact?

 

[bangai-o]

Onlive is defintely better than psn.

 

[R_thanatos]

I'm not much of an online gamer so I can't really comment on which service is better for gaming, although the few games I do play online run great on PS3/Wii/3DS.

However, I think it's absurd that I would have to pay for XBOX Live in order to access video apps like Netflix, Hulu, etc. when I can access them on my PS3, Wii, & 3DS (Netflix) without paying a monthly/annual fee to Sony or Nintendo.

dont you get it?

You have to pay because its superior !!! /jk

 

[Gattsu25]

Onlive is defintely better than psn.

Onlive is better than people give it credit for.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Onlive is better than people give it credit for.

If only the console was cheaper, say $49.99?

I'd buy it for back-up
(Doesn't hurt I have a 150Mb/50Mb connection to boot for super smoothness, hell Wifi works very well on it too)

Also forgot from a Free to a Good home, got Trine + Braid free, and even gave away 2 copies of Braid/Osmos when I found out about it

 

[Metalmurphy]

Onlive is better than people give it credit for.

The service on paper is amazing, and has some pretty sweet features, but there's no way I'm going to play a game with Youtube quality bitrate and 250ms delay.

 

[Elvin Atombender]

Let's say they do give developers a good rate of return for giving games away for free, that means Sony is left out of pocket and means they don't have enough to invest in the network to advance/improve it.

I'd like to know how you can be sure that either the developers or Sony have to lose money on PS+? Are you basing this on some real numbers or did you just make it up?

 

[GraveRobberX]

The service on paper is amazing, and has some pretty sweet features, but there's no way I'm going to play a game with Youtube quality bitrate and 250ms delay.

It's gotten better

I mean, I'm not hardcore gaming on it, but occasionally you just pop in, play a little, or go watch someone else play live, sometime you see some funny ass shit
I mean if it shuts down or I lose right to my games, I mean I spent a whopping $1.80 for 2 games, and got another 2 Free

 

[GraveRobberX]

I'd like to know how you can be sure that either the developers or Sony have to lose money on PS+? Are you basing this on some real numbers or did you just make it up?

ASSumptions

 

[Metalmurphy]

Yeah the arena is definitively the best part of Onlive imo. Specially since it's all so seamless.

 

[Vorg]

I'd like to know how you can be sure that either the developers or Sony have to lose money on PS+? Are you basing this on some real numbers or did you just make it up?

Speedy, just show us where you're getting the data to base your assumptions on. I mean, you must have access to some insider stuff since you keep insisting on that. You wouldn't just pull numbers out of your ass. Right?

 

[thelastword]

Man Speedy is getting Decimated By Grave, but it's so easy because Speedy is like a broken record now. He says absolutely nothing but grates on the same no proof, no-substance spiel.

As for this whole argument, I had XBL for about 16 months in total, a 13 month sub followed by a 3 month pack-in i got, I hardly used it. The only thing i did was play a match in Gears 2 and played a bit of the blur demo online. In the end i think I wasted my money, granted I'm not the biggest online gamer outside of the fighting genre.


I'm sure many gamers who play lots of COOP will tell you LIVE is better to organize such games and keep your team together, but I happened to play a bit of Killzone 2 online and that game had some good teamplay, I wasn't around for much RFOM but I heard good things about that one. It seems like Speedy and some others are trying to present the PSN network as so abysmal that you'd think that you cant even have fun playing PSN online compared to the heavenly paid service that is XBL.

My argument is this, If XBL is so great, why don't the games have dedicated servers, why do they use the same networking structure and underbelly similarly to the abysmal PSN? If you're talking about an online service, how comes Xbox does'nt have a browser, where i dont need to leave my console to check on something quick, like look up something quick on ps3trophies.org or watch a quick youtube video on how to handle a specific boss. I can do that on my PS3. People are talking about downloads and installing and how awful it is on PSN, but is it really? How comes I cant pause downloads on XBL if I need to speed up torrenting on my pc etc... hell, i could pause or queue them all for download in one fell swoop on PSN and manage my downloads much better as opposed to XBL. The points is, there are a lot of underlying features available on the PSN that is absent from XBL and the marketplace, yet the OP doesnt mention them at all, so of course he sounds onesided.

If you're going to mention the online services, i think the most fundamental thing is online play. If there is no fundamental difference in lag during play, then it's a moot point. Some here have spoken about chatting during gaming, that's hardly something I do. When I play SF, I dont connect my mic and I happen to have two quality bluetooth mics excluding the PS Eye which i can use, I just dont prioritize chatting when I'm playing online, of course different strokes, different folks though, so if a guy has his mike and wants to chat away, I'm cool with that, as i've hardly run into annoying mic users in SF or Tekken for that matter.

I think the XBOX interface is just too bloated, too many huge slides and ads, when I hit the PS button, i like the speed with which i can navigate, both in-game and out of a game. At this point the biggest difference between XBL and PSN would be the Cross Game Chat, personally I dont see the value for plopping 50 for such a feature, since I do play online and hardly use my mics. When you round it up though, overall the value of the service is something lost on me in many instances. If I want to watch, Netflix, Hulu etc.. on XBOX, I need Live, that's preposterous. In as much as most games have demos on LIVE, PSN gets most demos the same day as XBL anyway, sometimes before, and I cant tell you the number of betas I've been on via PSN. I dont have to wait a week to play a demo on PSN, another preposterous XBL tactic. IMO Microsoft is trying to boost the value of their service with features you get elsewhere, so when bringing this whole PSN vs XBL topic. I hope these guys are not just doing MS FREELANCE PR.

 

[Inanna]

When it comes to actually playing games online XBL isn't any better than PSN, hell PSN has tons of games with their own dedicated servers, can't remember if MS has any. That alone makes PSN better, imo.

 

[BruiserBear]

The infrastructure behind Live is what makes it the best. As a consumer, it just works and works well. When I haven't played a game in a year and I pop it in, I get 1 message telling me there is an update. Most likely there are about 10 updates to that game, but the way MS built Live and standardized everything means that all updates must be cumulative. This means regardless of how many updates a game or piece of software has.. I press A, one time and I get them all in a few seconds.

MS is a software giant and unified platforms and standardizing them is something that is their specialty. Sony is not a software company and it shows when you use PSN. The best part about PSN is its free to play online. And lets not kid ourselves, its only free as a marketable feature.. the only one they have against MS. Sony would do anything to get $250 million/yr from subscriptions like MS does. Don't pretend for a second they are giving you free online play because they are nice people. Other than that its painfully obvious how far behind their software team is when compared to MS. Just look at the Sony catalog of media they have stashed, yet here were are in 2012 and they still cannot figure out a way to just stomp the competition by delivering up those goods to consumers. Sony could completely own the living room if they wanted ... which I'm sure they do. They just lack the know how to make something like that happen. Its like a second world country trying to get to the Moon.

I'll even go as far to say that Live is unrivaled even on the PC. Its basically a closed platform unified gaming/media/social service that standardizes in every facet. It has its walls, so its not perfect.. no system is. But despite the constraints it does what it does and does it well.

Live is the best because it simply just 'works'. It was designed from the ground up, from the first line of code to now with easy and usability in mind. Its efficient and standard, and as a consumer you rarely if even ever see a hiccup with that experience. Sony unfortunately doesn't have enough talent on board to go toe to toe when it comes to these kinds of architected platforms. Nintendo? Nintendo refused to go big with online not because they see little value in it. They refuse because unlike Sony, they know they cannot play that game with MS. They continue riding that Mario/Zelda fanbase, and leveraging that innovative creative hive mind in the Wonka factory to appear cutting edge at each generation. All 3 bring something unique to the table, and all 3 have a place in this industry. Each company has its strengths and its weaknesses... but when talking about software development, and online infrastructure its Microsoft's back yard.

Live as it is today held back by 7 year old restraints on the 360. Expect to see features blow open next gen. Expect to see unified products and services between all MS products. True cross platform functionality between Xbox "Durango", Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and other devices. The Xbox brand is big business now and MS has built an entire campus in Redmond for this Xbox 'team'. Some of the original brains behind WindowsNT code are now working on cloud services for the next Xbox. (http://www.bgr.com/2012/01/19/father-of-microsoft-windows-nt-joins-xbox-team/) They are treating the brand with as much respect as they do Windows and have big expectations for it over the next few years. There will be features on Live that are not possible on other platforms, mark my words.

This is something neither Sony nor Nintendo have the ability to produce or compete against. All they can do is try to keep up and they will always be doing so.

I've watched both Microsoft and Sony grow their online experience/firmwares since the launches of the PS3 and 360, and I can say that Sony has not done really much.

Microsoft just has it down pat. Little things even like being able to change your gamertag and deleting 0G achievement entries make a difference. All they're doing now is stacking on top of an already solid featureset.

For example, let's look at the achievement system (360) and trophy system (PS3). The trophy system has been hacked to bits and has turn into a complete playground, and I don't think I've ever heard of the word "ban" in Sony's vocabulary. They took action with the PSN hacks only because their reputation and finances were at stake moreso than user security. When a tacked on feature like Trophy support is manipulated, they could care less, because it has nothing to do with finances, and the press isn't talking about it to make them look bad.

Microsoft on the other hand, has their achievement system locked down, and if anyone does happen to tamper with the system, they are promptly banned after two or less reports. No way to report people on Sony's end, of course, though.

Sorry if the above example/comparison seems vapid, but it's a good representation of the differences of the companies and how they handle their online service.

Firmware update after firmware update with Sony people pray for useful features added, but what keeps happening are updates that are useless to the end user that Sony only labels as "security updates". When a feature is actually added, it's always something very, very minor like "Recommendations" in the PS Store (which needs an overhaul itself). Not to mention the frequent "maintenance downtimes" that on average take around 15 hours or more, with no explanation as to why by Sony; speculation that they were in preparation for a huge firmware update always unfortunately came to be false. The frequent maintenances do nothing for the end user but frustrate them.

Perhaps let's look at the PS Vita. It released in December 2011 in Japan, and people were wondering why on the PS3 that Vita friends would not only appear offline, but appear with no "last offline" date nor avatar, seems like a glitch, yes? Not only that, but Vita trophies don't even show up on the PS3 list, while they can easily show up on third party trophy listing websites alongside them. Now, skip to February 2012. Still nothing. Now, skip to now in May 2012. Still nothing. Is Sony this out of touch with their online service?

I play games and like to also complete games. Microsoft gave me an easy option to choose their service, after realizing cheaters cannot breath on their service, lest they even bother to cheat. Sony on the other hand, you're completing games that little teenagers are hacking with no punishment. It's Sony's problem, not mine. If they won't take their service seriously, then I won't take it seriously either, and play on the serious one.

These two posts pretty much summarize my thoughts.

Sony has certainly made a lot of improvements over the years, but Microsoft still has a notable edge, and it's the key things they get right.

I think this is going to become even more apparent as we transition to the next generation of consoles.

 

[thelastword]

When it comes to actually playing games online XBL isn't any better than PSN, hell PSN has tons of games with their own dedicated servers, can't remember if MS has any. That alone makes PSN better, imo.

Good point, I've also been getting many green bars playing SFAE 2012 on the PSN as of late, and I have region selected to ANY.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

So while people defend Live as a paid service, here are some things you missed out on as a result of Microsofts paywall;

• Larger online player bases
• Longer lasting online communities
• Dedicated game servers
• Cross platform play
• A web browser
• Mod support
• Free to Play titles
• LAN play support