Even if they're swathed in the black and white cloak of PlayStation, gamers have a lot to thank Microsoft for.
The relatively new-kid-on-the-block, MS revolutionised online play with the original Xbox - and saw its Live service go supernova with the release of the Xbox 360.
It was for good reason, too. Live was clean, user-friendly, reliable and reasonably priced. Bobby Kotick might moan about it being a 'walled garden' to the money men, but to gamers, it's always seemed open for business.
However, recent changes to Microsoft's Xbox Live service may have finally shown us a moment of weakness - and provided the perfect opportunity for its closest rival to pounce.
The issue of paying to play online has been a point of contention since the launch of the PlayStation 3's freebie PSN.
Microsoft's decision to charge for Live was hard to argue against during the infancy of Sony's online gaming service. Though most devout Sony fans would never admit it, the PS3 experience was undeniably awkward and bare in comparison.
Microsoft could charge for its service and point to a robust and user-friendly experience to justify the price tag.
Paying for an Xbox Live Gold subscription has become second nature to most gamers; it's as engrained into the culture as rifling through the second-hand sections (sorry, THQ).
But this week's announcement of an increase in price for Xbox Live Gold could be a bucket of cold water over the head for this audience - startling them into reassessing whether they feel they're getting value for money from Live.
The price hike in the UK is limited to a £1 increase on the one month subscriptions, which will change from £4.99 to £5.99. In the US, however, it's more severe, up $2 for a one-month sub ($9.99), $5 for a three-month ($24.99) and $10 for a full year ($59.99).
The relevance of the rise will vary from person to person - and many will consider it insignificant. But it is important to take note of what changes are occurring on a service level - namely, none.
With no noticeable improvements or changes to the Live experience on the horizon, most users won't be able to perceive any tangible benefit to warrant the increase.
Meanwhile, Sony has set the price of PSN Plus to directly challenge Live Gold - and now sits $10 cheaper than MS's offering in the US ($49.99).
More importantly, it doesn't have to answer awkward questions. It's not on the backfoot, justifying why it chunks what it does off your debit card each month. It's free to push the idea of £200-worth of 'extra content' to consumers. Which is exactly what it's doing - and with some vigour.
It also still has that wonderfully attractive ability to get you hooked for nothing. 'Basic' PSN has changed dramatically over the last few years - no doubt as a response to Xbox Live. It now offers a service that is almost as feature-rich and usable as its competitor - but won't cost you a dime.
This may be the opportunity to get a significant foothold in the online gaming world that Sony has been waiting for.
Though many subscribers are committed to Xbox Live and have invested significant time into building an identity, could the allure of a free service and a better perceived subscription value strike a killer blow for PS3?
I don't personally think it is going to any impact whatsoever.
The same people who will complain about this kind of thing will happily pay for a phone at £35 a month which they still pay over £200 initial outlay on a 2 year contract.
I get more entertainment from my Xbox than I do from a phone.
I will also point out that Xbox Live is still superior to PSN for online gaming.
uhm..duh..I also think it depends on what console you already have. If I had to make a decision on the start of a new generation...yes, Sony could have an advantage...but so far in the cyclus I don't think I will buy an extra console just to change the online service
You can put me in that bracket. You get what you pay for in this life and as Altitude2k pointed out earlier in the week, this is the first price increase in about 7 years of the service. XBox live is a great experience and well worth the money. I have owned a PS3 in the past and though I did enjoy PSN, in my opinion, it didn't compare to its rival. But hey, that's just me. To each their own.
xbox live is what made me buy a ps3. and i'd sell my ps3 and buy a pc if i had to play to go online. i also don't appreciate everyone having a mic, i mute most people when i'm playing online. because they're all f**king annoying.
i have both i pat for plus and xbox live. i think that plus is a bit crappy and wont be renewing my mebership and a pound aint really nothing but i think they should have given something instead of just take take take like they usually do. i think if psn finaly did cross chat then they would be in the running and have alot more to go on.but to be honest xbox takes the p**s charging for online games were its free on pc and ps3 but its a good service. but is it worth the money they charge..
Well if Sony actually start improving PSN then I bet some xbots may jump ship but not in this state.
Everything the ps3 does is pi$$-poor to say the least and psn feels so lifeless. Sony haven't added or improved any features like the internet browser which is technically broken hasn't been fixed since it ps3 released.
PS3's catchphrase is '' it only does everything '' but it doesn't mean it does anything really well does it ? Sony need to be active in the online war instead of doing f*** all.
The fact that MS want to charge you to play online in the first place is a joke.
People seem to think its normal but they are just rip of bastards. Sega didn't charge for having the Dreamcast online, that was free online gaming, and lets be honest when xbox live first came out, it was not really much better than what Sega had done two years before considering they wanted £40 a year for it.
Most PC games don't ask for any money from you to play online, you don't have to pay to play the PS2 online either (although the PS2 was awful online).
Nintnedo don't ask for any money and nor does steam. So why pay the £40 a year? What do you get thats so good? Crossgame chat and....well....errr...thats it. As a method to play online games Xbox live is a complete rip off. A system that charges you for all the other junk. Sure you might like Last.fm but I bet you would rather have XBL free then have Last.fm, Twitter and facebook. And the real kick in the nuts is that MS put adverts on the NXE! You are paying £40 a year and you STILL get adverts!
I think Sonys way is so much better. Free online play, and money comes from DLC purchases and Vidzone adverts.
Interesting and articulate article, but I'm betting that the price increase does not automatically grant Sony the online gaming crown.
MSFT can be accused of many things, oftentimes justifiably, but one thing they are not is hasty to act. In the case of their gaming initiatives, specifically Live in this case, we know that the company would be unlikely to jeopardize the mostly positive trajectory that these business segments represent in their overall portfolio.
That implies that a tremendous amount of analysis likely went into the price increase prior to its official announcement. Obviously, companies like MSFT do this type of analysis all the time, and are wrong just as often as they are right. The distinction I am drawing here is the relative importance of Live as the true competitive advantage for MSFT.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Kinnect achieves parity with the Wii and that MSFT's library of both 1st and 3rd party games already has parity with (or even supercedes) Sony's library of games. That means MSFT's only competitive advantage is Live. Why put that at risk with a price increase that is unjustified?
That's why my bet is that they ran the numbers, and the increase is in fact justified. I don't think US consumers are going to flinch at an across the board hike of $10, when we're already paying $60 for new games, and prices in line with $10 for DLC, at times.
On top of that, it is not a trivial thing for a consumer to just switch from the XBox to the PS3, if that consumer does not already own both systems. There are tremendous switching costs for that. In fact, the consumer that already does own both systems is likely to be the least price sensitive consumer out there; that is, most likely to be completely indifferent to the $10 spike.
Read more on my blog, if you care: http://marktanjutco.com/?p=78
I know a lot of my personal friends who I play with on XBL are hurting financially, so they have scraped in order to even get where they currently are. Asking for $10 more right now for the financially weak position most people are in is a kick in the teeth. PSN is in no way the same, but maybe some of my friends will switch it up and start thinking free to play MP. Killzone 3 is coming up and Uncharted was awesome playing that on the MP side too. Not to mention that any great shooter on the Xbox is going to be on the PS3 minus Gears and Halo. So that is all you really lose when not re-upping with them. As an owner of both I do a lot of MP on XBL and this recent hike is making me think twice is all I am saying.
Well if Sony actually start improving PSN then I bet some xbots may jump ship but not in this state.
Everything the ps3 does is pi$$-poor to say the least and psn feels so lifeless. Sony haven't added or improved any features like the internet browser which is technically broken hasn't been fixed since it ps3 released.
PS3's catchphrase is '' it only does everything '' but it doesn't mean it does anything really well does it ? Sony need to be active in the online war instead of doing f*** all.
I haven't had any problems with the browser. I use a keyboard while on there though. I actually used it primarily when my laptop went out to check up on multiple facets of my online life.
How can anyone think either service is good value for money? These are huge multi-million dollar corporations. PSN may appear to give you content that's worth something, but they are clearly just offering you things that haven't sold well. The way I see it, if PSN were to offer a decent selection of full games to buy online, they would easily win the battle. A team-up with Steam would be brilliant.
Well psn is getting steam, so if they fix there damn browser, add cross chat, and maybe update the interface a bit, no real point in having live. Looking forward to the future though.
I'm not sure where this guy got his info, but as a current gold member I got an email detailing the update.
Here is what I get for the extra $10 a year, that's less than $1 more a month.
1. Better voice communication: I have been waiting for this.
2. Hulu: My xbox is currently a media center extender and netflix provider for my TV so the addition of Hulu is very welcome.
3. Windows 7 phone compatibility: Waiting for 7 to upgrade my phone, this could be minor or huge but an addition none the less.
So is it worth a dollar a month? Easily just for #1. On top of that as a long time customer I actually got an offer to sign up now to renew at $39.99 for next year. That's the right way to treat customers.
Neither platforms offer dedicated servers for games, 360 mic quality is perfect, so I guess people that use this are paying for that feature but its worthwhile. Most PS3 multiplayer I play is either silent with the odd guy playing some rap music in the background that sounds like he is sat with his mic in the bathroom, or lets their little child speak into the mic. The only way to improve PSN sound quality imo is to bring out a subscription model which includes a mic, and up the bit rate quality.
I'm starting to have problems justifying Live's price.
I think about it like this... if PSN were half as good as Live, then I'd be willing to pay half as much as Live to use the service... but in reality PSN is really catching up, and is honestly almost as good (save lack of cross game chat), and yet PSN is still free and Live costs US$59.99 a year
I am slowly starting to play PS3 more and more, and I'm wondering if it's worth renewing Live
Neither platforms offer dedicated servers for games, 360 mic quality is perfect, so I guess people that use this are paying for that feature but its worthwhile. Most PS3 multiplayer I play is either silent with the odd guy playing some rap music in the background that sounds like he is sat with his mic in the bathroom, or lets their little child speak into the mic. The only way to improve PSN sound quality imo is to bring out a subscription model which includes a mic, and up the bit rate quality.
I actually agree with this as well. The fact that no one talks or works together on PSN has been an issue and I would much rather have a better alternative to Bluetooth than just USB hook-ups. I guess we will see what Sony does with this knowledge of the opportunities that are arising. They need to be proactive and jump on this in order to gain market share.
I am a PS3 owner and I don't particularly like the service the 360 offers BUT instead of listing all the things wrong with it (which there are plenty), I'm gonna tell you what I like about the 360 online experience.
f**k ALL!!
I'm joking, no there is 2 things I like that the 360 does better than the the PS3.
1. Chat. It's been discussed already but it can't be ignored. The fact you can't cross game chat is ridiculous especially since the 360 has done it for AGES!
2. Downloading. One that I don't think has been mentioned on here yet. When you download a demo off LIVE, it installs at the same time. Meaning come 100% you can play your demo immediately. With the PS3, it downloads (same speed as Live) but then has to install as well which can take yet another couple of minutes which is stupid!
As for the sound quality, I have had no problems but I have only talked to people with official headsets, maybe the people you have played with have got the cheaper ones..or you have
I don't use the XBox anywhere near as much as my PS3, partly because I'm in the strange position where I know more people with PS3s than XBoxs. So from this point of view, it isn't worth it seeing as I hardly use it. Also, I could do without all the fluff like MrPointyHead videos. I find PSN to be very stable and reliable, it's feature packed enough for me, although I would like to have the party chat feature considering about 8 of us at a time play Bad Company 2 but you can only talk to your squadmates.
But then again, I don't really notice that £40 after a month or two, although it might be a stretch for students and families on income support. I would like a multi tiered subscription service, one where I only pay for online gaming and none of these demos, videos, Facebook, etc. Like Sky, I guess. This way, MS could see what is popular and cut their costs not making the stuff people don't want.
Trouble is, there is no competition. That is, there is no other provider on XBox that can offer you a service other than Live. You want a different service, you buy a different device. If you were allowed to select a different provider, you can bet your bottom MS wouldn't be charging £40 for Live if another provider was charging £30 on the same box. Could we see multiple gaming providers on consoles in the near future?
Credit where credit is due, MS may have b******sed up their attempts at competing with Google, but they opened Pandora's box with Live. Cheers MS.
Who cares?!? Got both systems and go online with both. My biggest gripe with some people is when MS adds something that is basically meager and these guys thinks it's well worth them charging your more. Listen buddy, them getting you better quality sound on your headset, shouldn't be lauded as that crap should have been updated when 360 first dropped. My favorite thing about Live is the cross game chat and party feature, that makes playing games and talking with friends a great thing, also allows easy muting of morons in online lobbies. What I don't get with MS is why isn't the silver Live free and allows playing of online games. This is what I seriously can't wrap my head around with these guys. Sony is doing it free and the Plus is for those who want the extras. Sony gives you a two tier system, free gives you basic online play and what not(things that should be free) and plus for whatever crap extras you think is justifiable. MS gives you one choice as a Silver account gives you absolutely nothing for free, even basic online play.
You can champion Live but don't try to turn a blind eye to the fact that you have to shell out the same money as a PS3 gamer for a game then unlike the PS3 gamer you have to pay for the simple ability to play online with others? Now they up the admittance fee and all I see is people defending this saying "it's worth it", unless you are a stockholder in MS then you can say that, but as a consumer this isn't worth it to me. I don't give two craps about Hulu or ESPN, why do I have to pay for s**t I don't want or need? So I say to you is it worth it then? You are in a closed system with no options to speak of, you have to pay to play online with others on top of paying for your already pricey internet connection. Live's biggest downfall is lack of options, worst offence is not having free to play online.
PSN is not awesome by any means, but it does allow you to freely get into online gaming, no questions or credit card numbers asked. It's constantly being evolved and is being shaped, with the addition of plus it's a pay if you want to idea. Rightfully the paid stuff should be things you want to pay for, not things you have to pay for. I don't want plus or have any interest in it. I like my PSN how it is right now. Free with high quality headset sound from the get go. Too bad PSN Plus doesn't have cross game chat, now that is Live's greatest thing, everything else is pretty much on PSN free to use.
I'm guessing that if you have a 360 only paying to play online is your only choice. My brother pays for the service as he plays the 360 the most, I thought of getting an account but realized that would be another $50, how stupid is that? Same house, same ISP and IP gateway, but we both have to pay separately to play online? No thank you! Some people defend it, well as there isn't much else to say. They are already paying, so nothing to do but defend your choice. Last.FM and other were brought to Live, but now you get a price hike so that basically takes away that gift and tacks on other things you didn't ask for or necessarily need(better headset sound quality is a slap in your face after all this time).
As long as Sony keeps on improving PSN and the basic online play is free I'll keep using it. I like not spending all of my money on my hobby, what is wrong with that? Plus I get a media hub out of the deal, that outputs DTS HD signals, and 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 LPCM.
2. Downloading. One that I don't think has been mentioned on here yet. When you download a demo off LIVE, it installs at the same time. Meaning come 100% you can play your demo immediately. With the PS3, it downloads (same speed as Live) but then has to install as well which can take yet another couple of minutes which is stupid!
Slick Loose, I kind of agree with you here, but then I think about some ISPs and their monthly download limits. PS3 games come down in zip files, making the contents smaller in size to download than they would normally be. I would rather wait a few minutes for an install than pay more for internet usage.
I'm a very happy Xbox 360 Gold user, the increase has not affected me or any of my friends (we all have 12 month subscriptions - which have not increased in the UK).
Microsoft's Gold service is still second to none, I use all facets of the service, Sky, Last.FM, Facebook & Twitter and neither myself or any of my 360 owning mates will quit the service. Sony's recent charging shows that Microsoft were forward thinking when it came to the online services.
It's nice that PSN is free and I get a bit of use out of it but I think I prefer Live anyways. It's easy to use, I've got more friends on there and everyone has a mic. Plus I tend to get a better connection which I usually need because my broadband isn't great.
You can champion Live but don't try to turn a blind eye to the fact that you have to shell out the same money as a PS3 gamer for a game then unlike the PS3 gamer you have to pay for the simple ability to play online with others? Now they up the admittance fee and all I see is people defending this saying "it's worth it", unless you are a stockholder in MS then you can say that, but as a consumer this isn't worth it to me. I don't give two craps about Hulu or ESPN, why do I have to pay for s**t I don't want or need? So I say to you is it worth it then? You are in a closed system with no options to speak of, you have to pay to play online with others on top of paying for your already pricey internet connection. Live's biggest downfall is lack of options, worst offence is not having free to play online.
Kinda hard to itemize features at $50/60 a year. Would you really be happier if Gold only cost $47/57 instead and cut last.FM, netflix, hulu, espn, party chat, etc and just gave you the multiplayer for what it cost? I mean that would be like getting netflix for $10 a month and saying that you don't want 90% of the content so it should only cost a $1, you could cut the content 90% and it would still cost enough to justify a $9 price tag.
Online play costs money, so you can either pay for it upfront as a service or get it from your game sales. Live provides more and better services than PSN in general.
As for having to pay an extra $50 a year even though you live in the same house... you are paying for the draw on MS's servers. 2 live accounts means 2x the draw which means 2x the cost.
Nothing is ever free, if you didn't pay for live directly you would be paying indirectly with higher game prices and likely be getting worse service.
The fact that MS want to charge you to play online in the first place is a joke.
People seem to think its normal but they are just rip of bastards. Sega didn't charge for having the Dreamcast online, that was free online gaming, and lets be honest when xbox live first came out, it was not really much better than what Sega had done two years before considering they wanted £40 a year for it.
Most PC games don't ask for any money from you to play online, you don't have to pay to play the PS2 online either (although the PS2 was awful online).
Nintnedo don't ask for any money and nor does steam. So why pay the £40 a year? What do you get thats so good? Crossgame chat and....well....errr...thats it. As a method to play online games Xbox live is a complete rip off. A system that charges you for all the other junk. Sure you might like Last.fm but I bet you would rather have XBL free then have Last.fm, Twitter and facebook. And the real kick in the nuts is that MS put adverts on the NXE! You are paying £40 a year and you STILL get adverts!
I think Sonys way is so much better. Free online play, and money comes from DLC purchases and Vidzone adverts.
PSN is the biggest load of b******s, i used to work for Sony and every site they have is shocking slow, so how is the PSN suppose to be any better?? My Ps3 went belly up and i got told Trophies are all lost, now i dont give a s**te about them but for amount of rubbish Sony talk about these trophies makes them a laughing stock. Rather pay for Xbox live anyday .
In my opinion MS cannot justify charging for a service no other platform does. Xbox fans always preach how much better Live is but I don't know ANY owners of both consoles who think Live is really that much better other than cross game chat and the fact they have more friends on xbox.
In a way MS have invited us all to a party but are charging us to interact now we've got our coats off.
As a side note to the people complaining about the PS3's web browser: it may be pants but Xbox doesn't have one at all. (same goes for iplayer)
I think some people on here claiming Live is better for gaming have no experience of PSN.Live is better as a social network but for gaming,no. I had more lag on Live,more disconnects and it has lower player counts for games. True,the lack of headset can be an issue but not much for me,as all my friends use headsets. Downloading is slower in PSN meaning you have to manage your time better,but I'm afraid"better for gaming" is not actually true if you measure play mechanics over social aspects. Personally,I'm not a fan of Halo and without that there is little attraction to Live,hence my subs were cancelled long ago.
PSN is the biggest load of b******s, i used to work for Sony and every site they have is shocking slow, so how is the PSN suppose to be any better?? My Ps3 went belly up and i got told Trophies are all lost, now i dont give a s**te about them but for amount of rubbish Sony talk about these trophies makes them a laughing stock. Rather pay for Xbox live anyday .
Trophies are tied to account not PS3.Sign on to new Ps3 and they are all there. When you say you worked for Sony(bitter much)were you tea boy at a Sony store?
PSN has no body speaking, struggle to find games, awkward interface and let us face it, lack of arcade games/content that is on every other platform hurts it.
Live is better, end of - In fact I never thought I would agree with Penny Arcade but anyone who claims PSN is comparible clearly hasnt spent time with live - specially since the NXE
Forgot to say MS do deserve a lot of credit for pushing online gaming of consoles forward and creating competition for Sony to step up more with the PS3. PSN still lags behind on social stuff but I've read plenty of quotes with people making claims like "PSN doesn't show players met"or "you can't block people on PSN"(not on this thread)and much of this stuff shows ignorance of Live fans who have no PSN experience. I understand why some people prefer Live,it has a few key advantages but for GAMING PSN is not behind. I've played many a 32 player game(I've tried smaller but prefer the big ones)and even 8 player co op. Live manages 16 or maybe 24,ususally.
@Jetfire what crap are you talking about? Anything can be itemized if you actually attempt to do it. You are talking crap thought, PS3 and X360 games cost the same. So this
Nothing is ever free, if you didn't pay for live directly you would be paying indirectly with higher game prices and likely be getting worse service.
is one dumb ass statement.
I said that Live has cross game chat which the single greatest thing about Live, PSN doesn't compare to that at all. But the simple fact that Live has an all or nothing approach is what makes this annoying. Why isn't basic online play free? We'll see how this plays out, I have a feeling that free basic online will be a sticking point. Live is the only online connection that you have to pay for just to enjoy the very basic online abilities of any game. PC and PS3 are both free, and are pretty ok, but the point is basic online should be free. Only MS has come out with this idea that you should pay for online, and well everyone has eaten it up. But now there is an alternative, this pay to play thing is being looked at even more intently, especially with a rise in prices. You are still getting the same stuff you were already paying for, so where is the reward for being a loyal paying customer? Better headset voice quality? Inclusion of programming that you didn't necessarily want, you have no choice to decline it anyway. Worse it's an all inclusive thing, everyone's subs are going up one way or another, so don't think that UK is going to be without this price increase for too long.
Companies will charge what they want and get away with it if we don't say something about it. Don't know about you, but increasing the price is paying for what exactly? If you think it's justified then more power to you, i think it's not.
The Gold Subs on Xbox Live are all part of MS's business plan for the Xbox. Any profit they make on it is used to support the Xbox brand, allowing them to keep the price of the consoles down, so that more people can buy them. I'm sure Sony have been kicking themselves for not going down the same route and charging for PSN, in fact it's probably the reason they've introduced their "plus" service.
But seriously, I can't see anyone switching to the PS3 over this, not for such a small amount of money.
simple answer. I left microsft xbox 360 on the shelf because i refused to pay twice for online. i pay for internet why should i pay again. PSN is now (didn't use to be) as good as Xbox live. Ok no cross chat but who cares. i play my brother in a group no problems and chat during game play. plus less annoying idiots shouting abuse.
I used to be a Sony hater but have seen that Sony gives a hell of a lot for nothing (HOME, Bluray, Internet browser, BBC Iplayer(4od on way)music channel) and will never go back and give my money to Microsoft. PS3 is awsome and if Valve can change its tune so quickly to say that Portal 2 on PS3 will be the ultimate console experience after years of critism then maybe you Xbox owners best take a look at the competiton also.
The Playstation doesnt need to do all that much to get on par with live, all it needs is a party system, a better in game invite system and an easier way to deal with those obnoxious little idiots who on live dont even get 5 seconds to pierce you eardrums with their high pitched squealing thanks to the simple mute option.
PSN is the biggest load of b******s, i used to work for Sony and every site they have is shocking slow, so how is the PSN suppose to be any better?? My Ps3 went belly up and i got told Trophies are all lost, now i dont give a s**te about them but for amount of rubbish Sony talk about these trophies makes them a laughing stock. Rather pay for Xbox live anyday .
Trophies are tied to account not PS3.Sign on to new Ps3 and they are all there. When you say you worked for Sony(bitter much)were you tea boy at a Sony store?
He probably means he worked for Sonny, his gimp pimp.
I'll also start by saying I have all 3 desktop consoles. I really don't understand where all these people keep coming out with "PSN is unusable!!" etc? I have used it for 2 years now and have had NO problems! I also had live gold but didn't renew it after the first year as PSN did everything I needed and I found myself buying multiplayer online (cross platform) games more and more for the PS3, just because it was free. Live is quite slick but I have no use for hulu/last fm/cross network chat so I can't justify paying an extra £40 a year (Which can buy me a new game of course!) that could buy me a new console after 3 years!! But once again I HAVE to aplaud MS (and Apple, sorry off topic)for brainwashing these kids that they are doing them a FAVOUR in charging them for the service and to the kids who are willing to pay them AND fight MS's battles for them, arguing how great it is. Bonkers.
I dont care how good or smooth XBL is.its just not worth paying. And anyone who justifies it has a cronic gaming addiction,M$ the dealer and gamers with the addiction. Id rather give $59 to a homless person he/she would be happy and id feel satisfied i did somthing worth spending it on.
"Paying for an Xbox Live Gold subscription has become second nature to most gamers; it's as engrained into the culture as rifling through the second-hand sections..."
I strongly contend that charge; please be more specific in how you reached the conclusion that "most gamers" accept it, CVG? I for one do not, and I am hardly alone in that sentiment. Besides, I have seen nothing any of the console online communities offers me that surpasses what I can get online via the PC (which is incidentally entirely free and with a far greater range of user options to choose from).
Anyhow, if I had to choose between the free basic PSN package and LIVE gold membership, I'd pick the free basic PSN package despite not having tried it simply because it is free. However, since I won't support Sony that won't happen. Conversely MS shouldn't begin to rub its hands in glee either, since I care not one whit for multi-player on consoles and use it exclusively for single-player experiences. I win.
Ok essay time boys and girls - you never know, someone might read this!
Shopping around leads me to know that 13 months of xbox live can be purchsed for 28 quid. This equals £2.30ish a month. What do you get for that? A lot as I shall outline.
Firstly did you ever wonder why Microsoft seems to get exclusive demos, content, videos and BETAs? It is not because Microsoft bribes companies but simply because it doesnt charge them to upload to xbox live. The PSN is a free user service so Sony make their money by charging developers to upload their products to the PSN - for a popular demo sony can charge many thousands of pounds.
Secondly we get discounted games. I remember sitting down and trying to work out the true value of 800 microsoft points - it turns out to be around £6.50 however you do have to buy it in 8 quid amounts so end up with 200 msp spare. I jumped on to the PSN the other day and content that costs 800 microsoft points is listed at £9.99 over 3 quid more expensive. (which is more then the cost of xbox live per month I add)
XBL is also slicker and easier to navigate and use, it is so in built into the system it feels totally natural, it is easy to find games, content etc on the psn it feels so divorced from the process of gaming its unreal - almost like you are loading up an internet page rather then navigating your home console.
Microsoft use the XBL fees to subsidise placing a microphone in every single xbox unit sold - it is much easier to communicate on live then PSN.
The video marketplace is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of quality - something microsoft has used xbl sub fees to develop. Add on the accessories like facebook, twitter, last.fm etc and its fairly nifty.
It also allows microsoft to take risks, 1 vs 100 was amazing, it has sadly died now but an MMO quiz that was free for gold members? Nice!
Finally cross game chat, parties and the messaging system is so much better then the PSN system it is untrue.
You get what you pay for, I like my PS3 but it is definatly used more as a single player console, it is the same for all the guys in my clan - we managed to have 1 night on the ps3 so far compared to weekly events on the xbox.
Gamestop told me that was the case and i didnt question it as i didnt really care, but there is no way someone can think PSN is a good service. Its abit like a eating out, sure you can eat in McD's but for a bit more you can eat in a proper restaurant and get a decent service.
On the "hilarious" jibe on the tea front, yes i was the Cross Dressing tea lady, using that knowledge i obtained from boiling that tea i then went on to set up my own IT company, and now i make in a few days compared to what i used take a month to earn working for Apple, Dell and Sony Vaio, all thanks to yhe tea leaf of course. So strickers sadly i wont get to see your "intelligent" reply as im working all day tomorrow so i can go away with my gf for a long weekend. But dont lose heart as im sure there are other balanced gamers that you can throw your fanboy comments at.
Firstly did you ever wonder why Microsoft seems to get exclusive demos, content, videos and BETAs? It is not because Microsoft bribes companies but simply because it doesnt charge them to upload to xbox live. The PSN is a free user service so Sony make their money by charging developers to upload their products to the PSN - for a popular demo sony can charge many thousands of pounds.
Where did you happen to come upon this information? I would like to know more. Exclusive Beta's, the only reason that happened was because 360 was the lead system and their games were always ahead. Now notice it's the other way around these days, times have changed no? I would really like to know more about the money and stuff for uploading products on Sony's PSN.
Secondly we get discounted games. I remember sitting down and trying to work out the true value of 800 microsoft points - it turns out to be around £6.50 however you do have to buy it in 8 quid amounts so end up with 200 msp spare. I jumped on to the PSN the other day and content that costs 800 microsoft points is listed at £9.99 over 3 quid more expensive. (which is more then the cost of xbox live per month I add)
Look it comes down to this, if you actually want to buy said game. If you don't buy it you are not getting any discount, therefore what does that save you?
XBL is also slicker and easier to navigate and use, it is so in built into the system it feels totally natural, it is easy to find games, content etc on the psn it feels so divorced from the process of gaming its unreal - almost like you are loading up an internet page rather then navigating your home console.
Eh what? Neither system allows you to purchase from the store unless you are in the store which is totally separate from the gaming. None of them are close to feeling natural. Natural would be, navigating the store while within a game, you just pause and browse the store quickly and hop back into your game.
Microsoft use the XBL fees to subsidise placing a microphone in every single xbox unit sold - it is much easier to communicate on live then PSN.
That is some subsidy, cheap ass headsets. I sure hope that isn't what they are using the premium they charge for online play to include. Sony gives you no such freebies, but many early games came with Bluetooth ready headsets free(Warhawk, Socom)and they are worlds better than 360's headsets.
The video marketplace is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of quality - something microsoft has used xbl sub fees to develop. Add on the accessories like facebook, twitter, last.fm etc and its fairly nifty.
Seriously what? Facebook, Twitter?!? Video marketplace is leaps and bounds better? Clarify this statement, if you are talking about videos of games and what not, I beg to differ. Everytime I see a downloaded video on Live it looks non HD(Wii 640x480 levels of pixelization). Video's on PSN come in 3 flavors, SD, 720p and 1080p.
It also allows microsoft to take risks, 1 vs 100 was amazing, it has sadly died now but an MMO quiz that was free for gold members? Nice!
One game that was free for your loyal paying customers...it's better than nothing. The fact that it was free was why everyone jumped on it.
Finally cross game chat, parties and the messaging system is so much better then the PSN system it is untrue.
Cross game chat is the only thing that Live really has that PSN hasn't replicated at all. Parties do exist, for those who use Home(who uses this?) to launch their games. PSN messaging system is totally retarded and redundant, which is why I use my headset
You get what you pay for...
Well said, and if you read what I wrote, for free PSN user sure do get quite a lot don't they?
Someone else had stated that Live's subsidizes cheaper systems or something ridiculous like that. What was he high on? PS3 was always a better value for your money, HD space is where Sony killed MS. The largest PS3 vs the largest 360 back then was 60 and 20 gigs respectively, yet the systems were only $100 apart in price. Forget the bells and whistles 60Gig PS3 came with.
My point is that MS doesn't give you a choice with Live it's either you get it, or play alone. Nice options, but they have done well with this system. Should Sony's free PSN really get the ball rolling, next gen MS will have to offer a stripped down Live for free. You're already paying for too much without having to subscribe to a non customizable service. I want more control over what I do with my money. Live is a well built and smooth interface, but it's not what I would call a great thing, especially when my hard earned money has to dole out for it.
The article says it's "more severe" in the US, but $10 increase on the annual fee, a whole 83c per month, is that really what we call "severe"these days! If/when they increase the annual fee here by a whole 83p per month I'll have no problem at all, I'm aware I've been paying the same subscription ever since I got the 360, despite the increased services (I use Sky alot, it's particularly handy if my proper Sky box is already recording 2 shows). Oddly I don't play that many games online, prefering to only play against friends rather than total strangers (can't be bothered with the abuse) but I still think I get good value for money.
Oddly with my PS3 I've yet to find anything on PSN or in playing any of the games, that makes me want to either play online or invest in PSN+. Though that may change if/when GT5 finally lands.
"Paying for an Xbox Live Gold subscription has become second nature to most gamers; it's as engrained into the culture as rifling through the second-hand sections..."
I strongly contend that charge; please be more specific in how you reached the conclusion that "most gamers" accept it, CVG? I for one do not, and I am hardly alone in that sentiment. Besides, I have seen nothing any of the console online communities offers me that surpasses what I can get online via the PC (which is incidentally entirely free and with a far greater range of user options to choose from).
Anyhow, if I had to choose between the free basic PSN package and LIVE gold membership, I'd pick the free basic PSN package despite not having tried it simply because it is free. However, since I won't support Sony that won't happen. Conversely MS shouldn't begin to rub its hands in glee either, since I care not one whit for multi-player on consoles and use it exclusively for single-player experiences. I win.
So why spend all your time posting comments on this site about things you haven't tried, have no interest in or any real first hand knowledge of?
I don't mind paying to play online so much but I could do without Facebook and Twitter. It seems pretty poor to me, when the other consoles get a browser for free where they can go and use those websites. I'd rather have Spotify than Last.FM, I don't use Sky Player and I would happily have 4od and BBC iplayer instead.
Hmm, on the face of it I'm not really getting a great deal, especially as I don't use any of the stuff a gold member is entitled to.
Gamestop told me that was the case and i didnt question it as i didnt really care, but there is no way someone can think PSN is a good service. Its abit like a eating out, sure you can eat in McD's but for a bit more you can eat in a proper restaurant and get a decent service.
On the "hilarious" jibe on the tea front, yes i was the Cross Dressing tea lady, using that knowledge i obtained from boiling that tea i then went on to set up my own IT company, and now i make in a few days compared to what i used take a month to earn working for Apple, Dell and Sony Vaio, all thanks to yhe tea leaf of course. So strickers sadly i wont get to see your "intelligent" reply as im working all day tomorrow so i can go away with my gf for a long weekend. But dont lose heart as im sure there are other balanced gamers that you can throw your fanboy comments at.[/quote
Beautiful reaction. "I set up my own company and make lots of money,and,and ,and......I have a girlfriend". Fantastic. You question my intelligence? I'd say I'm smarter than you based on the fact one cheap remark,made you spit your dummy out so much you couldn't type. As for fanboy comments,I'm a bit old for that nonsense,but I will say Live does some social stuff thats'better.NOT gaming stuff,though.PSN is nowhere near as bad as Live only gamers suggest. More players per game,less lag,less disconnects and only one service failed for 2 weeks.
I don’t mind paying to play online, as i love the fact it’s such a great experience! I log on jump into a friends party have a quick chit-chat about life and then decide what game to play whether it’s with them or not if there’s an update it quickly logs me off and on with in seconds and im then placed right back were I started in the party with my friends.
I play a lot of BFBC2 squad DM, with this game mode communication is very important, and this imo is what PSN suffers with big time. BT mics don’t work well enough for multiplayer, if its not hearing 50 cent in the background its interference coming from somebody’s free BT headset they got with there Nokia.
I also like the fact that even though I live in the UK we still get new content added to the dashboard to watch ect, I found when I had PSN unless you was a yank you either got it when SONY felt like it or never at all… a big reason why HOME was such a big fat fail in the UK :/
XBL cross game party chat is a great feature that probably is worth the cost, it's great the be in a party with your friends and play as a team without having to listen to everyone else on the server, not to mention the fact that everyone has a headset to talk through. I don't, however, think it's the deciding factor in you choice of platform for multi-player games. That, quite simply, is a matter of what your friends play. If all your mates have an Xbox then you're not going to switch to PSN even if you do own both systems, and you're defiantly not going to go out and buy a PS3. The problem Sony face is that by this point in the current generation most peoples gaming habits are set in stone, they go where their friends are, and even if you're just considering your first console purchase you're probably going to talk to your mates before making a decision.
That's true for younger gamers I think but my friends were all early 360 adopters,and we've all migrated to PS3(even a couple of 360 only fanboys).Now we've mostly cancelled Live and play PSN only.Why? Cross game chat is ok but unessential(we mostly play together or WANT to play alone).PS3 in last 2 years has better games,trophies are better to chase than achievements,and I object to paying for things that should be free.
It's great to hear the yanks whinge about the price rise affecting them and no other country but as a long time user I can say that that the yanks seem to get extra benefits and features along wtih competitions and other stuff which the rest of the world doesn't get.
It's great to hear the yanks whinge about the price rise affecting them and no other country but as a long time user I can say that that the yanks seem to get extra benefits and features along wtih competitions and other stuff which the rest of the world doesn't get.
It's an America company product, they aim at the US first as it is the easiest to localize, and has quite a large market. You take care of the largest market you have first, you don't want to lose your momentum there. Why shouldn't they whine? They are where MS gets most of it's money from, when you get a rise in prices for little to no improvement, you get a bit upset and ever watchful over your wallet.
I play a lot of BFBC2 squad DM, with this game mode communication is very important, and this imo is what PSN suffers with big time. BT mics don’t work well enough for multiplayer, if its not hearing 50 cent in the background its interference coming from somebody’s free BT headset they got with there Nokia.
I also like the fact that even though I live in the UK we still get new content added to the dashboard to watch ect, I found when I had PSN unless you was a yank you either got it when SONY felt like it or never at all… a big reason why HOME was such a big fat fail in the UK :/
You sir either do not play BFBC on PS3 or you are a very bad liar. I own the game and BT works impressively well, in fact the majority of people who have BT use the Sony branded BT which has a HQ HD mode which makes the sound even more impressive, not sure what you are talking about here my friend. BT not working properly, most BT have a range of 33ft, no one has a living room that big. In BFBC2, most of the good- excellent players seldom speak, only when they really get stuck or people aren't doing their job. Not to mention you can mute just about anyone you want.
What's this talk about new content? I continually peruse the web whenever new content for PSN or Live comes about. Eurogamer and CVG tell you what was added to PSN and Live, so you must be speaking about when PSN was first started. You sir are making assumptions based on past issues that have been improved upon. How on earth does anyone play BFBC2 with a s**tty mic is beyond me. Although while playing FM3 I can seriously tell you that there are a lot of people with horrible mics, lots. I play FM3 online a lot.
1st PSN users do use mic's try socom to find that without mic's you tend to do poorly.
2nd PSN games like socom ect have dedicated servers for these games
Last PSN is free and hope it stays like that it was what keeps me loyal to the playstation franchise,I've been with them from number 1 and can honestly say i have not really ever been disapointed.Keep up the great work Sony MS have to much money anyway.
I've asked this question in another forum and got no answer. How is Live better than PSN? Cross game chat, is the only benifit listed and not one I'm worried about. PSN enables to me to get on line, play with friend and shoot them in the face. I've never had problems with doing this invites work, it is as they say 'all good'. I can only guess those that say 'PSN suckZ' haven't tried it. I can understand how if you are being charged for a service and you see someone else getting the same service for free that would be upsetting but get over it. Put up or shut up!
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
if there’s an update it quickly logs me off and on with in seconds and im then placed right back were I started in the party with my friends.
