Support NeoGAF

[Thomaticus~]

I don't see people can pay money to play the same games that others play online for free.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

At the point that PSN on PS3 is itself a driving reason for people to own a PS3 over X360.

At the point that a competitive and significant number of people who own both platforms choose to buy multiplatform releases on PSN over XBL.

While I think XBL will very likely never be surpassed for features and availability of new releases in the console space this generation, the point of change is determined by MS. As long as XBL pulls in the money and grows Gold memberships as it is doing at an increasing rate so far, it will continue to be around and, hopefully, with competition it will continually improve like it has been.

 

[Slavik81]

It's already hurting them in terms of marketshare. But they won't do anything about it until next generation, because until then the benefits of milking their current customers outweigh the benefits of having a few more customers.

 

[VALIS]

Considering that the gaming industry is increasingly being defined by the casual market I think the idea of a company attracting customers by offering hardcore features at premium prices is likely on the way out.

Unless Microsoft pulls the same "out the gate early" trick I wouldn't expect to see it next gen.

I'm always surprised how often a forum full of hardcore video game fans doesn't seem to understand the average video game consumer at all.

- They buy 1-3 games a year.

- Most of them play CoD, Madden, Halo, Gears and other ultra-popular franchises all year long with their friends online.

- $3 or $4 a month is nothing considering most people's cable bills are $60-$100 a month.

This forum always gets so hung up on principles and overlooks the bottom line. No one gets upset over three bucks a month unless they're looking for something to get upset over. GAF clenches its angry little fist and shakes it at the sky, when ultimately you're talking about an extra gallon of gas a month. It's trivial. Fine, get upset at the principle behind charging for Live, I could see some reason to. But don't be surprised that almost no one cares. My electricity and cell phone bills, those are fucking atrocities. My $3.50 a month for XBL is almost beneath my attention.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm always surprised how often a forum full of hardcore video game fans doesn't seem to understand the average video game consumer at all.

- They buy 1-3 games a year.

- Most of them play CoD, Madden, Halo, Gears and other ultra-popular franchises all year long with their friends online.

- $3 or $4 a month is nothing considering most people's cable bills are $60-$100 a month.

This forum always gets so hung up on principles and overlooks the bottom line. No one gets upset over three bucks a month unless they're looking for something to get upset over. GAF clenches its angry little fist and shakes it at the sky, when ultimately you're talking about an extra gallon of gas a month. It's trivial. Fine, get upset at the principle behind charging for Live, I could see some reason to. But don't be surprised that almost no one cares. My electricity and cell phone bills, those are fucking atrocities. My $3.50 a month for XBL is almost beneath my attention.

Thread should be ended here.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I think the lack of built in wireless hurts ms more because people who have not used XBL and don't know what the fuss is about and don't know why its so much better than PSN will not be willing to pay 100 bucks to get their 360 online.

 

[elrechazado]

I think the lack of built in wireless hurts ms more because people who have not used XBL and don't know what the fuss is about and don't know why its so much better than PSN will not be willing to pay 100 bucks to get their 360 online.

It's kind of amazing how gamers seem to block out the existence of wired internet. You know, the kind that the majority of homes have?

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Maybe when the competition can come close to matching the service. I don't like paying for online, and I think that making demos timed exclusives is a bit shit, but it's unfortunately quite a good service.

It's kind of amazing how gamers seem to block out the existence of wired internet. You know, the kind that the majority of homes have?

Not having wires laying around is quite nice. Yep, you can use wires, but that is still a feature of the PS3 and Wii that the Xbox 360 does not have. And the official wireless adapter is ridiculously overpriced, irrespective of what the competition does or does not have.

The "Elite" launching without some kind of wireless solution was quite ridiculous. Not quite as ridiculous as not having HD cables, but close to it.

 

[Relix]

I still can't believe people whine about 50 meager dollars a year.. a year! And even then you can buy it for 30 bucks if you wait for offers.

Ill be glad to pay the money if it brings more content to the console in general, like contracts for exclusive DLC, etc... gives me a reason to stick to the system.

 

[elrechazado]

Maybe when the competition can come close to matching the service. I don't like paying for online, and I think that making demos timed exclusives is a bit shit, but it's unfortunately quite a good service.



Not having wires laying around is quite nice. Yep, you can use wires, but that is still a feature of the PS3 and Wii that the Xbox 360 does not have. And the official wireless adapter is ridiculously overpriced, irrespective of what the competition does or does not have.

The "Elite" launching without some kind of wireless solution was quite ridiculous. Not quite as ridiculous as not having HD cables, but close to it.

Obviously wireless can be nicer than wired in some houses. However, I was responding to a specific comment. You certainly do not need to "pay 100 dollars to get online".

 

[Chrange]

Not having wires laying around is quite nice. Yep, you can use wires, but that is still a feature of the PS3 and Wii that the Xbox 360 does not have. And the official wireless adapter is ridiculously overpriced, irrespective of what the competition does or does not have.

The "Elite" launching without some kind of wireless solution was quite ridiculous. Not quite as ridiculous as not having HD cables, but close to it.

I kind of doubt the majority of casual gamers have a functioning wireless network. It's gotten a lot easier to deal with, but it's still not plug and play - and that's what it takes for most people.

I can't be the only guy here who gets calls from family members and friends asking 'how do I get this to work?' on the simplest tech questions. Wireless networking (and security - a huge boogeyman for casuals) is just out of the question.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I still can't believe people whine about 50 meager dollars a year.. a year! And even then you can buy it for 30 bucks if you wait for offers.

Ill be glad to pay the money if it brings more content to the console in general, like contracts for exclusive DLC, etc... gives me a reason to stick to the system.

I think I would have been more accepting of it if the majority of games, including first party games, weren't basically P2P, with all the limitations of that model. Looking at the competition which hasn't been shy of offering a more PC-like experience with server browsing and matchmaking for the majority of its first party games, as well as pushing the boundaries far more in terms of sheer scale, it's not hard to find grounds for criticism if basic online play is all you're looking for.

I would certainly prefer a model where basic online play was free, and greater community features required a subscription. But it's not going to happen, because the overall package is just that appealing.

I kind of doubt the majority of casual gamers have a functioning wireless network. It's gotten a lot easier to deal with, but it's still not plug and play - and that's what it takes for most people.

I can't be the only guy here who gets calls from family members and friends asking 'how do I get this to work?' on the simplest tech questions. Wireless networking (and security - a huge boogeyman for casuals) is just out of the question.

I don't buy that at all. Technological barriers can be overcome quite easily, through friends or other services. I don't have any numbers for market penetration so this is obviously, but I can tell you that every single person that I know who has computers also has a wireless network. Unsecured and unoptimized ones for sure, but the networks are up and running. It's appealing, well established technology.

This honestly reads like a Cubite argument from 2004, re: HD and online gaming.

 

[unomas]

I've had an utterly horrible recent experience with Xbox live and Xbox customer care, how is the PS3's online mode these days compared to live? I'm seriously thinking about making the switch from 360 to PS3. The universal friends list is the only thing that keeps me coming back along with achievements, if PS3 online has the universal friends list now consider me gone as Microsoft customer.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I've had an utterly horrible recent experience with Xbox live and Xbox customer care, how is the PS3's online mode these days compared to live? I'm seriously thinking about making the switch from 360 to PS3. The universal friends list is the only thing that keeps me coming back along with achievements, if PS3 online has the universal friends list now consider me gone as Microsoft customer.

You will miss the community features, and be prepared to get incredibly annoyed by game/system updates and just about everything else that involves downloading something. On the upside, straight online play is plenty good.

 

[SovietStriker]

Lol, consumers bitch about the 360 online yearly fee and developers bitch about the PSN bandwidth charge.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/20/sony-now-charging-publishers-for-ps3-downloadable-content/

For a demo that is sized at exactly 1GB and is downloaded one million times, that would add an extra $160,000 that Sony is now charging and that, according to publishing sources, Microsoft isn't. That's what could scare publishers from placing content on the PS3.

Some one has to pay those servers that host dlc/PSN/XBLA games/demos. You choose PSN developer gets hit, XBLA you get hit. This may shed some light on why xbla has a couple of games that dont go to PSN.

EDIT: People can stop bitching about games being P2P, everyone knows what they're charging for is mentioned above bandwidth for downloadable stuff(as many posters mentioned already in this thread)

 

[Clockblockers]

It's kind of amazing how gamers seem to block out the existence of wired internet. You know, the kind that the majority of homes have?

Really, I always thought the growing majority was turning towards wireless; though I could be wrong.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Lol, cosumers bitch about the 360 online yearly fee and developers bitch about the PSN bandwidth charge.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/20/sony-now-charging-publishers-for-ps3-downloadable-content/

Some one has to pay those servers that host dlc/PSN/XBLA games/demos. You choose PSN developer gets hit, XBLA you get hit. This may shed some light on why xbla has a couple of games that dont go to PSN.

So then separate the charges. Let me play my games for free on a barebones service, and charge me for the community and content package. I understand why they wouldn't do that, and I don't blame them, but it would be nice.

EDIT: People can stop bitching about games being P2P, everyone knows what they're charging for is mentioned above bandwidth for downloadable stuff(as many posters mentioned already in this thread)

Why? These services do not exist in a vacuum, so I'll measure them against one another. The competition offering its first party games with more features despite running a free service seems relevant to me. It doesn't make it superior, but it's a point against certain games on XBL.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm always surprised how often a forum full of hardcore video game fans doesn't seem to understand the average video game consumer at all.

- They buy 1-3 games a year.

- Most of them play CoD, Madden, Halo, Gears and other ultra-popular franchises all year long with their friends online.

- $3 or $4 a month is nothing considering most people's cable bills are $60-$100 a month.

This forum always gets so hung up on principles and overlooks the bottom line. No one gets upset over three bucks a month unless they're looking for something to get upset over. GAF clenches its angry little fist and shakes it at the sky, when ultimately you're talking about an extra gallon of gas a month. It's trivial. Fine, get upset at the principle behind charging for Live, I could see some reason to. But don't be surprised that almost no one cares. My electricity and cell phone bills, those are fucking atrocities. My $3.50 a month for XBL is almost beneath my attention.

I'm not getting antsy about the price, really it's certainly almost beneath my attention as well, but from a strategic viewpoint free is much better than $50. For me the difference between a $250 device and a $200 device is very little, but from Apple's recent press conference we know there's this crazy psychological barrier at $199 that gets folks to open their wallets. Likewise Sony advertising something to the effect of "Sony does what Micrsoft-don't: Free online" at the start of the next gen could certainly have an effect even though as you say it amounts to as little as $3.50 a month. That didn't happen this gen but we all know that Sony's online efforts were shoddy and of course they were $599.

I'm really looking at this from the perspective of in the next generation can Microsoft justify the strategy in this more competitive environment. I think Microsoft has a lot of folks on live due to friend lock in from launching early so that might be what they should do again.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

I think it more likley Sony will start charging (with the next gen) rather than MS stop charging

Running the Xbox live servers must cost millions, they have to recover it somehow

It must cost Mr. Internet millions of dollars a day to run the internet!

 

[T-1000_Model3]

lol...gamers here have backlogs from hell from not having enough common sense on their spending and yet cry like girls over 3 bucks a month. Eh,grow a pair and enjoy the service already,noone will hand you a tissue,its a lost cause.

 

[elrechazado]

It must cost Mr. Internet millions of dollars a day to run the internet!

......

comment of the thread?

......


seriously . . . :lol :lol :lol

 

[Slayer-33]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103129


At the cost of $3.30 a month for a great service I don't think it'll ever hurt Microsoft.

Things in life have an upkeep, they throw up demos for you and you download them on demand or play the games online with friends or chat via text/voice, not counting all the content they pay people to produce for you to watch for free.

I have never had an issue with the live service it has always been well maintained and rock solid, totally worth the price of a Cheeseburger and and fries per month :lol

speaking of live, I have to buy me a new year. Subs up on the 10th of this month :lol

 

[unomas]

You will miss the community features, and be prepared to get incredibly annoyed by game/system updates and just about everything else that involves downloading something. On the upside, straight online play is plenty good.

My only concern is the friends list, otherwise I'm just looking for the same online play I already get on 360, and then there's the fact that I won't have to pay extra for wireless on PS3 as well. God I'm tempted after the shit that happened with my live account in the last 24 hours MS pretty much just blew it with me as a customer.

 

[arstal]

I've had an utterly horrible recent experience with Xbox live and Xbox customer care, how is the PS3's online mode these days compared to live? I'm seriously thinking about making the switch from 360 to PS3. The universal friends list is the only thing that keeps me coming back along with achievements, if PS3 online has the universal friends list now consider me gone as Microsoft customer.

The matchmaking is significantly slower, communication is a little more cumbersome, and installs/updates can get annoying at times, but once the games start, I haven't noticed a difference yet. That said, if you have a USB keyboard- that helps out plenty.

Friends list- they have one. I haven't really added many people and talked to many, so can't judge- keyboard makes typing coherent thoughts better without resorting to texting speak, which I hate.

As for the dev cost vs consumer cost issue. If the devs can't be profitable under reasonable bandwidth costs, then the game shouldn't be released most likely- and often that's for a good reason.

 

[Prine]

I'm always surprised how often a forum full of hardcore video game fans doesn't seem to understand the average video game consumer at all.

- They buy 1-3 games a year.

- Most of them play CoD, Madden, Halo, Gears and other ultra-popular franchises all year long with their friends online.

- $3 or $4 a month is nothing considering most people's cable bills are $60-$100 a month.

This forum always gets so hung up on principles and overlooks the bottom line. No one gets upset over three bucks a month unless they're looking for something to get upset over. GAF clenches its angry little fist and shakes it at the sky, when ultimately you're talking about an extra gallon of gas a month. It's trivial. Fine, get upset at the principle behind charging for Live, I could see some reason to. But don't be surprised that almost no one cares. My electricity and cell phone bills, those are fucking atrocities. My $3.50 a month for XBL is almost beneath my attention.

Bravo. Its like they're infuriated because not only is it sucessful and making money, its the fact that its growing. Tremendously.

And the rules of PC gaming dont apply here just becuase expectations and needs shift as soon as you connect the xbox to your HD tv. I know as soon as i meet people on xbl we are all using pads, we are all experiencing the same performance, we are all using the same software versions. I dont have to worry about any of that.

More importantly its not something thats stored in conscience. Which part of the reason XBL works, its effortless.

 

[Slavik81]

I still can't believe people whine about 50 meager dollars a year.. a year! And even then you can buy it for 30 bucks if you wait for offers.

Ill be glad to pay the money if it brings more content to the console in general, like contracts for exclusive DLC, etc... gives me a reason to stick to the system.

I know. It's ridiculous. I bet the same people thought that the PS3's $599USD price tag would hurt it. The generation's probably going to last 6 years or so, making it only $100/year if you bought it at launch. A PS3 costs $8 a month. How ridiculous to think it was 'expensive'.

The concerns of peasants are beneath me. *puts on top-hat and walks out the door*

 

[Prine]

I know. It's ridiculous. I bet the same people thought that the PS3's $599USD price tag would hurt it. The generation's probably going to last 6 years or so, making it only $50/year if you bought it at launch. A PS3 costs $4 a month. How ridiculous to think it was 'expensive'.

The concerns of peasants are beneath me. *puts on top-hat and walks out the door*

Your comparing a service to a physical item. My PS3 doesnt continue to physically evolve and scale based on the needs of the market, a service does.

 

[Slavik81]

Your comparing a service to a physical item. My PS3 doesnt continue to physically evolve and scale based on the needs of the market, a service does.

You should try connecting yours to the internet. My PS3's changed quite a bit since I bought it.

Of course, your post doesn't actually make sense anyways. The cost is measured in dollars and is the same regardless of whether it's a service or a physical good.

 

[Sydle]

When Sony catches up and still offers its service for free.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It must cost Mr. Internet millions of dollars a day to run the internet!

Spoiler

You weren't seriously making that comparison, were you?

 

[Shurs]

Which sums up why some people pay for Live. To them, much like you are interested in PSN games and not XBLA games, the multiplayer experiences of Halo 3, ODST, Forza 3, Gears, Crackdown, Fable II, etc; are not replicated on other consoles to their personal satisfaction.

Are you serious? The other games you mentioned seem appropriate but everything I've heard about Fable 2's online co-op was that it was a disappointment.

 

[B-Rad Lascelle]

My only concern is the friends list, otherwise I'm just looking for the same online play I already get on 360, and then there's the fact that I won't have to pay extra for wireless on PS3 as well. God I'm tempted after the shit that happened with my live account in the last 24 hours MS pretty much just blew it with me as a customer.

Any chance you could go into detail on what your "horrible Xbox LIVE customer care experience" was as opposed to just alluding to it?

 

[Chrange]

Any chance you could go into detail on what your "horrible Xbox LIVE customer care experience" was as opposed to just alluding to it?

Fear tactics aren't as effective when spoken of directly!

 

[Firewire]

I realy started my online gaming experience on the PS3. I couldn't imagine paying to play online or for some added features that make things a bit easier.

If anything having to pay for online gaming has kept me from purchasing a 360 again, and it will most likely keep me from purchasing MS's next console.

 

[DrPirate]

I realy started my online gaming experience on the PS3. I couldn't imagine paying to play online or for some added features that make things a bit easier.

If anything having to pay for online gaming has kept me from purchasing a 360 again, and it will most likely keep me from purchasing MS's next console.

It's a lost cause for both sides, and neither will be convinced.

To them, it's actually "your" loss that you're not subscribing.

Flip that around, and you think the money they're spending is "their" loss.

I don't know why both sides can't agree to disagree with their stances on charging for a network and be done with it.

Tons of people on this forum live happily with both. I think Xbox Live and PSN both do things the other doesn't and it's quite awesome.

 

[dorkimoe]

when it stops being awesome

so never

xbl has been out for 8 years now? and people are still crying about it man..

 

[Firewire]

It's a lost cause for both sides, and neither will be convinced.

To them, it's actually "your" loss that you're not subscribing.

Flip that around, and you think the money they're spending is "their" loss.

I don't know why both sides can't agree to disagree with their stances on charging for a network and be done with it.

Tons of people on this forum live happily with both. I think Xbox Live and PSN both do things the other doesn't and it's quite awesome.

Yeah I agree. Personally if someone wants to pay and they feel some features make it worthwhile then who am I to disagree.

 

[Scottlarock]

I realy started my online gaming experience on the PS3. I couldn't imagine paying to play online or for some added features that make things a bit easier.

If anything having to pay for online gaming has kept me from purchasing a 360 again, and it will most likely keep me from purchasing MS's next console.

.

 

[Pyke Presco]

Honestly, if I hadn't started this generation with a 360 for 3 years prior to getting a PS3 I might be tempted to make the switch. But I've already invested myself with a full blown community and bought all my games on one platform, encouraged my friends to buy that platform, etc.

Next generation, whichever console launches first will determine whether or not I'm paying for my online experience, and I won't regret it one bit if I have to pay again.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

yeah MS will get rid of Gold next gen, just like im sure Nintendo will get rid of waggle in the Wii2 and go back to regular controllers.

 

[Firewire]

.

Some detail in your post would be great. I'm patiently waiting...

 

[okenny]

Live fees are estimated to bring in roughly $600 million a year. How much do you really think gets spent on bandwidth, support etc? $300 million? 600 million revenue on 300 million expenditure is as close as you get to "free" money in business.

Well you have to remember that WOW costs about half a billion dollars to maintain and they do major expansions yearly and only has to support the WoW platform were as WoW clients are downloading small packets of information and the occasional patch and using things like vent to chat. XBL, with nearly twice the user-base, has to support hundreds of games talking to each other and front the storage space for tens of thousands of games, videos, demos and assets ranging form a few megabytes to a few gigabytes in size. They have to run similar setups in CDNs all over the world and manage it on a global and a regional level. They have to then for the same user-base, provide the bandwidth to downloads these very large pieces of content at speeds often praised over their competitors. On top of all this they have to manage the bandwidth for the multi-player traffic that results from all this content wither it be match making, voice chat, content sharing and the occasional dedicated servers. To top it all off, the typically do major updates on the service twice a year in all regions which is a massive development and testing effort (remember they also run the shadow service (partner-net) for developers and partners as well).

Do they make money? Yeah, sure, why not? Is it the cash cow you think it is? Who knows?! Does it cost money to run it? Probably so much that one could never imagine it being free.

Finally, is it worth it?

Yes.

 

[olimpia84]

I don't see anything wrong with PSN. It offers me what I want and it's free, in fact it was one of the deciding factors for me to buy a PS3 over a 360

 

[crazygambit]

I don't really understand what you're getting at. First you say this group of people will absolutely NOT pay for online and now you're saying that's where all the money is going forward? Do you think casual gamers who only play Call of Duty multiplayer once or twice a month are going to shell out for all those $10 map packs? (Of which MS/Sony only get a portion of: 20-30% if I recall correctly).

The Xbox Live service can absolutely be sustained by the "hardcore" market. If 10 million people are paying them a $50 annual subscription that's half a billion dollars in revenue every year. They might get surpassed in total number of registered accounts or something like that, but they'd be making so much money as to not really care.

Think about bigger picture. I wasn't talking about Xbox Live, I was talking about Xbox 360 as a platform. Xbox Live is just a part of the 360 business. It's clear the money going forward for the 360 platform is in that group of people, and for that group of people, free online is definitely more important than for the hardcore that paid $400 for their console. Whether that is enough to convince them to buy a different console remains to be seen. Though I do suspect that by the time these consoles reach $129 it's gonna be a much bigger deal.

 

[Terrordactyl]

I still can't believe people whine about 50 meager dollars a year.. a year! And even then you can buy it for 30 bucks if you wait for offers.

Ill be glad to pay the money if it brings more content to the console in general, like contracts for exclusive DLC, etc... gives me a reason to stick to the system.

Its not the fucking fee, it's the principal. How can you not see that? I'd have no problem forking cash out for dedicated servers but for something that has been free for many many many years everywhere else, how can you justify it? Netflix really shouldn't be gold only either IMO, but it was a large reason why I subscribed before I canceled. Netflix is actually worth paying for but its stupid to charge twice for something. Back to Sony its not like the Bravia's that have netflix players built in are charging you, or the Roku player for that matter. I will pay for gold when necessary but lately its less and less a necessity for me personally.

I don't think its wrong to pay for live, I'm not condoning it, but I see little to no value in the service since I no longer use netflix. Also why do you have to be gold to video chat anymore? I dunno, after being a 360 owner for a couple of years I've just been left feeling like I'm getting nickeled and dimed for everything and if anything Gold is just something to keep the customer there akin to a customer discount card offered at a retailer.

 

[legend166]

The service is nowhere near as good as people like to make out, especially if you don't live in the states. In comparison to other consoles? Yeah. But in comparison to PCs and by just looking at in in a vacuum, it's not that good.

- P2P multiplayer with forced matchmaking and no ability to choose servers
- "Party chat", which is just skype but somehow everyone thinks it's the greatest thing ever made

All the other stuff have costs associated with them ON TOP of the $50 a year to begin with. Demos are advertisements, so you shouldn't have to pay for them.

 

[Chrange]

Some detail in your post would be great. I'm patiently waiting...

He's pointing out that you're speaking from ignorance. Most of the 'omg Xbox Live does NOTHING that PSN doesn't' crowd seem to be arguing from the same viewpoint though.

Very few people who haven't experienced something better - paid or not - are unhappy with what they're getting for free. Their old car is 'good enough' until they drive a newer one. Their TV is 'just fine' until they see a friend's new 1080p one.

Try it - and not just the 'got a 48 hour trial' version of "trying it" either. Somehow dig up the colossal amount of change required to buy Gold for a month - maybe two. I don't know. Sell a kidney maybe, or dig in your couch cushions for 15 minutes. Get a friends list and use it - play some games in a party or play a game while talking to friends in another game. Actually be social while gaming!

Then try PSN and see if you can still say it's just as good.

 

[Karma]

I don't see people can pay money to play the same games that others play online for free.

I play online for free with Xbox Live. I pay 67¢ a week to stream Netflix movies.

 

[Terrordactyl]

He's pointing out that you're speaking from ignorance. Most of the 'omg Xbox Live does NOTHING that PSN doesn't' crowd seem to be arguing from the same viewpoint though.

Very few people who haven't experienced something better - paid or not - are unhappy with what they're getting for free. Their old car is 'good enough' until they drive a newer one. Their TV is 'just fine' until they see a friend's new 1080p one.

Try it - and not just the 'got a 48 hour trial' version of "trying it" either. Somehow dig up the colossal amount of change required to buy Gold for a month - maybe two. I don't know. Sell a kidney maybe, or dig in your couch cushions for 15 minutes. Get a friends list and use it - play some games in a party or play a game while talking to friends in another game. Actually be social while gaming!

Then try PSN and see if you can still say it's just as good.

Most games worth playing have a party function and deliver a comparable experience. I for one am not a fan of the Live party while playing games. Too many of my friends that are bored and don't buy games day one demand to join my parties and ruin team play elements of the games I play.

Don't forget not everyone wants to play games the way you do. I think you should take a look at the other side of the fence and try playing games like R2, KZ2, RE5 or Uncharted and tell me that when playing with friends the experience is THAT much different from live. I've used both services very extensively and can say without too much bias that I'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. If you're going to play a game without a party system built into the games infrastructure, then yeah of course its not going to compare. But using the last year of PS3 releases as a gauge, I don't think this will be a problem again, save for a few budget titles.

 

[Chrange]

Most games worth playing have a party function and deliver a comparable experience. I for one am not a fan of the Live party while playing games. Too many of my friends that are bored and don't buy games day one demand to join my parties and ruin team play elements of the games I play.

Don't forget not everyone wants to play games the way you do. I think you should take a look at the other side of the fence and try playing games like R2, KZ2, RE5 or Uncharted and tell me that when playing with friends the experience is THAT much different from live. I've used both services very extensively and can say without too much bias that I'd be hard pressed to tell a difference. If you're going to play a game without a party system built into the games infrastructure, then yeah of course its not going to compare. But using the last year of PS3 releases as a gauge, I don't think this will be a problem again, save for a few budget titles.

When friends and I are playing Killzone 2 we STILL use Xbox Live to talk. Why does that happen?

I never said that everyone wants to play the way I do. What I want to know is why 'good enough' should be 'good enough' for everyone?