PS3 News: Online Service Battle: Network Outstripping Live - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Online Service Battle: Network Outstripping Live

When I first brought home the PlayStation 3 in 2006, I already had an Xbox 360. At the time, Xbox Live was the undisputed leader in terms of online service for consoles, and although I was interested to see the Network take early strides on the PS3, I basically dismissed it. I knew it had a long way to go, and while I'd keep an eye on it, I wasn't the type who spends hours and hours online every week, anyway.

But now it's time to reevaluate the situation and I have to say, based on the available software alone, the PSN has Live beat. I like to check both on a relatively frequent basis just to see if I can nab something cool for a great price. Well, the PSN library already has gems like flOw, Flower, Wipeout HD, echochrome, and others, and while I know you can find original Xbox classics on Live, the lineup really can't compare to the PS1 classic selection on the PSN. Furthermore, as third-party developers have now begun to include both the PS3 and 360 in its content production, there isn't much of a discrepancy in terms of add-ons and extra DLC these days. Yes, Live still has the edge, but it's mostly due to the early jump the service had, although I certainly think getting the exclusive rights to GTAIV DLC was big for Live. Beyond that, though, the Network just continues to push forward with some great stuff.

I've also noticed that first-party titles get better support on the Network as far as DLC goes; the amount of stuff on the PSN for LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and other exclusives is pretty impressive, and one can almost assume that future exclusives will get the same treatment. Then we have to factor in PlayStation Home, which certainly outdoes the revamped Live with its upgraded Wii-like avatar feature. Of course, many will just point to Live's populace - which isn't even that much bigger than the PSN's now, statistically speaking - and say Live is still more popular, but you have to admit: the PSN closed that gap quick. Now, you're starting to find major developers with their very own dedicated sections on the store, Qore is typically worth a look, and the movie download service is plenty appealing. I know what Live has and I get stuff there, too, but it seems as if the Network is where I'm spending most of my time lately.

Lastly, you've got what are still exclusives in MAG and Final Fantasy XIV, with more like The Agency on the way. Perhaps all of these will help to redefine how we view online gaming and if Microsoft isn't careful, Sony will wrench this crown from the 360's now-tenuous grasp. The Network remains free and if and when Sony drops the price of the PS3, not only will you probably see the PS3 catch up to the 360 in the sales category (the vastly better exclusive lineup will see to that), but you'll likely see the Network start matching Live stride for stride. And I'm only talking about the number of users; just in regards to available software and overall quality, I really think the PSN has more going for it right now.

6/22/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (111 posts)

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:20:33 PM
Reply

Yeah when it launched it was pretty darn sparse, but now theres too much stuff on there for me to keep up with it all. Home is kind of underrated in my opinion, but that stems from the older audience of PS3 owners I think. The youngsters still really love their social networks, but who doesn't want to take a gander at the Home space of the next biggest exclusive?

And more than any of that we have dedicated servers letting us play online multiplayer FOR FREE. Sony needs to make that known more, or better, or mo' betta, or whatever.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

chicko1983
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:34:01 PM

downloaded home in the beta but didnt appeal to me

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:46:18 PM

Well, yeah, it blew back then.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:26:16 AM

Totally agree @ World Ends with me. Yes you too Ben hit it right on the marks. As an Avid owner of both PS3 and 360 it is pretty much neck on neck now, and PSN is surpassing Live in other areas mainly on STABILITY AND MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMING. I've put that in capitals as I stress it so hard as so many 360 owners still feel live plays online games way better. And because I'm a huge online game fan and on both systems regularily, I can attest that those comments are based on opinion and not facts. Based on people not owning the PS3 and other fanboys have just fed them that misinformation.

Lives Shared server base architecture cannot compete with Dedicated server performance one bit. I've done a lot of research on Lives shared servers vs. PSN's dedicated servers and it's quite compelling that the latter runs far smoother with very little to no downtime and importantly much stabler.

Microsofts server basis are located in quadrants throughout the world. They have 4 server bases based throughout the world:
1) main base in the US (obviously)
2) Europe
3) Asia
4) Australia

These hubs serve the regions and is what brings gamers from all regions together. It powers all the features found on Live from the community dashboard, multiplayer gaming, marketplace, etc.
Microsoft apparantly went the shared route as they wanted total control over all the developers. In the article I read, many developers like EA did not like Microsofts control over their titles and dlc businesses. Apparantly it's like Microsoft has to have their thumb in every piece of pie and some developers expressed a little dismay over it.

Now the downside of Live's servers is that when the activity level gets to demanding for the servers to handle, you obviously get very piss poor performance from increased lag, disconnects, and games freezing were a reboot of your console is necessary. And I must confess I do not play a ton of shooter games. I'm more in the racing genre, but nether the less, I feel at very times in the week, especially the weekends, my online gaming is rocky at best.

Another time when online gaming is just aweful on live is when a new Gears or Call of duty game comes out. The server activity is so bogged down with people playing those titles, that all the rest of us (including those playing those titles) have to suffer big time.

Today I just read on N4G.com that apparantly the Live team is gonna comeout with a new updated dashboard as the performance of the NXE dashboard was sub par at most. Lot's of lag and stability issues. Now with the announcements of more features like Twitter and Facebook, Radio, etc, they better upgrade the dashboard.

So that is my experience with it. To be quite honest I honestly am not happy with the quality of Live much any more and on top of having to pay a subscription of 50 bucks a year, I'm close to deciding not to renew it once this subscription is done. Just don't see the value in it to have to pay 50 bucks. That's a ton of money MS is raking in and I feel is falling short in giving the consumer his money's worth.

Now comes the PSN.

As you know Sony uses the dedicated server architecture system, and I must say the performance is near flawless from what I have experienced.

The PSN has it's own huge server base for the dashboard/community services/PS Store/internet/Home/and some online gaming support. I beleive they have server bases throughout the world as well, but when it comes to the online gaming arena, most titles have their own dedicated servers which is a huge advantage over Live.

Not only can you cater to a larger audience with dedicated servers, you can have games that offer more player online support. For example the coming soon MAG offers 256 players in one room/Resistance 2 offers 60/KZ2, Warhawk, and Socom Confrontation offers 32 player battles. And the performance is outstanding.

Dedicated servers focus at one task at hand, which is multiplayer gaming, not multitasks like Live has to tend with. Hence the ability to offer seemless/smooth online experiences and at a much broader level.

The biggest online game support I have ever seen on Live was Call of Duty 3 which was 24 players. Modern warfare will support this much as well, and that is it. Any bigger than that and the lag would be atrocious.

Look at Dan Greenwalts Definitive racing game FM3. It only supports 8 where as GT5 on PSN will have 16 online player support. Major difference. And i'll clarify on FM2 even with 3 or 4 car online races, I've seen some pretty bad laggy performance and on a regular basis.

Going back to KZ2 and Resistance 2 for example, I truly can say that I RARELY see lag and never get disconnected from those games. I always play in full rooms as well and am amazed at how smooth the games run. You would never see that quality on Live. Their system wouldn't be able to handle the load. That's why I can't wait to put my hands on MAG this fall. 256 is unheard of even in the PC world, and from the demo we saw at E3, that is online gaming breaking new boundries. It's gonna make Nintendo, Microsoft, and the PC world think that for sure.

On top of amazing online performance, another testemony for me is the stability PSN offers, I maybe froze up 5 times since owning my system for over 2 years now. And I'm on PSN everyday. And one last area i've noticed an improvement over Live now is at the speed of downloading content through the store is definately quicker than Live now. That last update 2.70 I believe definately improved the bandwidth for streaming content. Very impressed.

So in conclusion, PS3 should definately rejoice. We are missing some much needed features Live has like voice messaging/ingame voice chat/ and game invites, but I'm sure all that will come in due time. The best thing is that unlike Lives 50 dollar membership price tag, PSN remains free. And where online gaming counts the most, PSN's dedicated server architecture outperforms Lives shared servers 4:1.

I'm not speaking here as a fanboy of Sony either. I own and love both systems. I'm not taking sides with one over the other. This is just my true experience. I bought my 360 on launch day (on my 3rd now), and My PS3 60gb 3 months after the official launch. I game on a daily basis on both and this is my true experience with both.

Hope this may help some who are hear thinking about which console to buy and which one offers a better online experience. As for the PS3 only owners, you have the best online machine bar none. Enjoy..

Agree with this comment 24 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Wage SLAVES
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:38:45 AM

@HOODGE

That had to be said. The stability of R2 is AMAZING @ full fledged 60 player rooms! ZERO lag. Its seems your internet speed is Finally the bottle neck as it should be. (Screw DSL)

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:50:56 AM

@Hoodge and everyone else - regarding lag in online gaming.

Lag in games is nor primarily caused by your connection's bandwidth. Network lag is mostly a factor of whether you use wireless and how your particular ISP is routed. Someone playing on a Satellite Internet provider for example will have world class lag times that will make online gaming in anything that runs real time controls (combat or racing) nearly impossible. Even a standard DSL or cable connection can have a lot of lag if the particular ISP is a couple of routers further away from the Internet's backbone. If you're in a game with a number of people who use wireless connections at home and perhaps are from far away places or have poor ISPs you will see a lot of lag, and the more players in the game, the more that can multiply. You could for example have players on the east and west coasts of the US playing, and simply the transit time of data from coast to coast bouncing through the various routers will create some lag. Some games are designed to use the data in more conservative ways so that lag is less evident, and some are not. Games like Soul Calibur 4 and Burnout Paradise simply cannot hide the lag the way that a standard FPS can. But even a minor amount of lag can alter the way in which a 'twitch' shooter is played.

Game designers and gamers both have to understand the limitations of the network, and the impact of how your own home network is configured.

It's not generally a matter of XBL vs PSN. Lag is lag regardless. As Hoodge described there are differences in server architectures between the two that have an impact. How those architectures perform will have an impact in terms of any additional network delays and how well the service copes with high levels of data traffic.

At the end of the day though, network lag is network lag.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:39:10 AM

Highlander I'm just stating my experience with the online gaming function between PSN and Live.
You are right, the quality of your internet connection is indeed a huge factor. Another is how you have your router set up as well especially your NAT settings, if they are restricted or open will determine how well your connectivity will be. (I'm using a 16mb fiberoptic cable connection with a Linksys WRT-160 router. All Hardwired as well.)

But my main message I was trying to get across is how stable and smooth an experience I have personally enjoyed with online gaming on PSN. Many a times I just get downright frustrated at times with Live's performance.

I'm not saying that Live is nothing but a lag fest all the time. It really runs great most of the time, but it is a very inconsistant experience at best. I'm not sure if you own a 360, but if you do, I'm sure you would know what I'm saying.

I know about lag and all that associated with connection quality and going direct hardwired to wireless and I appreciate you're feedback on that.

Still blows me away how smooth Warhawk, Resistance 1&2, and the likes of Killzone 2 run with very little lag if any. And i'm sure they're are various internet users playing that whether being hardwired or wireless. The Performance of dedicated server gaming does shine brightly my friend.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:16:41 PM

@hoodge

Sorry, I misunderstood part of your intent in your longer post. I was sure you knew the impact of network lag, but a lot of folks I run into online believe that lag is the fault of MS or Sony and their networks. I just wanted to re-emphasize that part.

I used to play Burnout Paradise a lot, it's a peer-peer game online, so almost all network lag in it is attributable to local network configuration, ISPs and the Internet itself. I lost count of the times I had to point out to folks that the lag they experienced wasn't the fault of PSN or XBL. I also cannot tell you how many times I tried to explain to someone that just because they have fiber to their wall and a gigabit ethernet capable router, network lag doesn't magically go away if someone else in the game session has horrible lag.

There are so many mis-conceptions in networking and online gaming...so many...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:44:57 PM

Highlander you are absolutely right my friend. I agree 100000% with ya. No sorry's needed.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NinjaMidget
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:26:19 PM

@ HOODGE and TheHighlander

The fact that two people have agreed over something in the comments section of a video game report saying that one console is better than the other is so weird that I think it just broke time!

Thank you both for giving me the confidence that not all gamers are idiotic fanboys! You have made my day better with your facts!

Last edited by NinjaMidget on 6/23/2009 7:27:15 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BIG_E
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:33:41 PM
Reply

Two words:GO SONY!!!

Agree with this comment 11 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:50:50 PM

Three Words:I like milk.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:42:32 AM

wtf

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jian2069
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:33:43 PM
Reply

It's funny because half of the population of LIVE is people who make accounts once a month to take advantage of the 1month free signup bonus because they cant afford live :search by people active in the last week and i guarantee PSN outdoes LIVE

Agree with this comment 15 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:36:54 PM

True true

true ture true

true true true true

Again...true!

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:48:12 AM

If that helps you sleep at night

Agree with this comment 0 up, 14 down Disagree with this comment

The Stig
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:30:18 AM

& Jian2069,

I dont think you can ever make a fair comparison on users of PSN and Live. Like you said people take advantage of the 1 month free trial on Live so they make multiple accounts. But because PSN is free people make multiple accounts too, I alone have 3.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:53:48 AM

Don't forget all the point farming that happens as well....

Then again lots of PSN users have more than one account so that they can access Home or the PS Store in different regions.

That said, Sony's trophy system does encourage you to stick with a single account. Not sure whether there's a great difference in users with more than one account on either network. Even so, it's still interesting that PSN is nipping at the heels of XBL even with the much vaunted difference in console sales....

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:39:20 PM
Reply

Exclusives get a heck of a lot of love

^That's such an important part of PSN
A beautiful part

And it's good to see more PSN classics coming out for PSN.

It's what evens out all the the other Aracade classics found on XBL

PSN is becoming rpg classics heaven! Now release more of those awesome ps1 rpgs and there we go!

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Qwarktast1c
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:50:38 PM

arcade classics get really boring after a while

PSone classics keep the excitement/nostalgic feeling going longer than any arcade classic will

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:49:35 PM
Reply

The PS1 "classics" offered on the PSN may be better than the original Xbox games offered via Live but IMO the PSN collection of PS1 games has a long way to go. I don't understand what is taking so long to bring true classics to the PSN, yes we've seen FF7, RE, and MGS but all of those were only in the past few months. It's easy money for Sony and if my 13 year old cousin can emulate his favorite games on the PSP I don't see why Sony can't churn out a dozen a week for the PSN.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:46:58 AM

I agree, you said it kind of screwed but ya you do have a point, an internationl team of superior programers could do at least one a week but i guess it's legal issues.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:58:26 AM

Because Sony has to act in a legal manner, so for every game that's released all the legalities and contracts have to be completed. Obviously the PS1 games on PSN use the same emulation on PS3 that a disc based PS1 game would use. So the games sold on PSN are little more than repackaged disc images.

The thing about it is,. no matter hopw many arcade classics XBL has and individually counts as a separate game, FFVII and MGS still trump them all. The PS1 (and in due course PS2) game library is Sony's trump card when it comes to down-loadable games. I just wish they were more active playing it.

Last edited by Highlander on 6/23/2009 10:59:06 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:58:21 PM
Reply

It seems that everyone on the internet just assumes that LIVE is better. The thing they really argue about is the reliability of the networks, aka: connection quality, loading time, disconnects, etc. I really dont play many games online anymore, but what do you guys think about that stuff?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:03:43 PM

I don't see a difference in terms of connection quality between the 360 and the PS3. I believe a majority of that has to do with your own individual connection, not the servers. This far along in the gaming process companies have it covered.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

The Stig
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:33:10 AM

I've definetley had more problems with Live than PSN.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:27:29 AM

Same here. I couldn't stand paying for that garbage.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:48:50 AM

My live has cut out on me four or five times were as my PSN has only once or twice, even then in the early years of PSN

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

G-WiZ199
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:02:16 PM
Reply

Sony has done a lot with the PSN and I commend them for doing so (especially since they are only charging us $free.99). To make the PSN perfect they just have to update the browser and keep updating home. Since MS implemented facebook and twitter apps for the Xbox, Sony should some how put those social apps in Home as well...along with streaming movies over the internet via home for your friends.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:13:09 PM

Playstation Cloud might have that facebook thing covered at least. I'd really like to see that video stuff in Home though. Must be copyright issues or something.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jmo_INDY_Repub
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:20:27 PM
Reply

i did that five times at my friends house, we made new accounts every month just because we didn't think Live deserved our money, we play the Network way more. The Network just sounds cool, The Network. Anyways, I propably buy 5 things every week on the PSN.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:32:40 PM
Reply

I dunno about Home being better than the avatars. It holds true for some people, but not all. I have 5 friends who have PS3's and none of them care or have the time to go on Home.

That includes myself. I would much rather have an avatar that everyone could see that represents me.

I will never pay for online. Never.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:09:24 AM

Those avatars look dumb. Nothing special really...

Specially since they look like something you'd find in a cheap kiddy game.

Can't wait 'till you can upload your own images for avatars on PSN (that's what they should do).

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:12:42 AM

You hurt my avatars feelings. He's all dressed up like a biker from GTA4:LatD

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:01:29 AM

How can Home not be better than the Xbox Mii/avatars? Home is a substantive environment where you can do things as well as customize your avatar. The XBL avatar is just an avatar, there is no destination, no where for it to go, nothing for it to do. I just don't see any comparison between the two.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:15:21 PM

In theory. It depends on what you're looking for. Home is not for everyone. Like I said, I don't know a single person who has even been on it. All my friends are over 24 and have jobs. We sometimes don't even have enough time to play games!

So for people like us, we would rather just have an avatar.

Home could have a million spaces, and I still wouldn't be on it.

I know Home in theory is better than avatars, but it just doesn't appeal to me at all. The character models are really corny looking, and the spaces take too long to load, and the games take forever to play because everyone is always camping around.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:52:12 PM

LOL, if Home avatars look corny then what on Earth can you say about the NXE avatars?

As for game camping, it's a real problem in Home. Home needs something that's familiar to people in the UK. It needs queues. When you want to play a game, hit a button to join the queue for the game, stick around and you'll get your turn in order of the queue. No line jumping, and if you walk away, you lose your place and have to rejoin the queue at the end.

There, Britain's shining achievement in civilization, we know how to queue (line up and wait our turn) for something.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:49:26 PM

The Live Avatars aren't that bad. The home avatars look corny and kinda freaky. It's like I don't even have one, because I don't go into home.

So that's what I mean.

If I had Live, I would at least have an avatar.

But to tell you the truth, I don't care for either. But I would choose an avatar over Home.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

XJGunz
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:07:10 AM
Reply

Well, let's be honest. Live still has PSN beat in some regards. With the fact that Live players have to pay $50 a year, it would only make sense that it would have more features (which PSN will hopefully get soon as well). I'm still trying to find X-game voice chat and invites on PSN. D:

With the recent momentum of PSN lately though, I'm sure we're bound to see these features soon. Here's to hoping, fingers crossed.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:10:47 AM

They're there

Keep looking
Laziness will get you nowhere

By the way, you only mentioned ONE feature.

If you're gonna claim that XBL has so many features and such then why not list them?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

XJGunz
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:53:39 AM

Well, I'm not some xbot if that's what you're trying to insinuate. And nowhere did I say that Live had so many features, I just stated it had more than the PSN, which is still playing catch-up. For example, trophies is their rebuttal against achievements, etc. I'm not saying that the 360 is "OMG. teh best online experience EVAR" but since you do pay a price, it might as well be a good one. For a free experience like PSN, it's only getting better.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:17:03 AM

Wasn't insinuating that you were a 360 fan.

But when you say that "for example" you can't find the Live chat option on PSN it throws me off. You can live chat on PSN.

I just don't see what these other features are or if they're even that important.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:29:56 AM

IMO
microsoft can have the title for best online capabilities
because sony dominates when it comes to exclusive games

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:31:02 AM

LOL Scarecrow, your so defensive!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:05:47 AM

Ah, I was wondering when this would get mentioned. The one feature that XBL has over PSN, chat.

Hey, guess what, I have a TELEPHONE, it does multi-party calls too.

PSN has voice chat as well, the only difference is that PSN doesn't support cross-game voice chat because each game effectively has it's own VOIP channel.

I honestly have never seen this as a huge feature anyway, and I'm always amused by people who hold it up like some kind of talisman of goodness that XBL has over PSN. Behold the Mighty Voice Chat of KARMAK!

<rolling eyes>

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:51:42 AM

Skype

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

XJGunz
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 4:04:54 PM

Plus, I don't understand why I have 6 thumb downs. I'm sorry I think that the Live service has more features. I'm sorry, I think PSN is doing a lot to close that gap. I don't know what else to say. Yes, I do think Live is superior, but I'm not saying that PSN is the worst service ever. PSN is doing a lot of things right, and whats best is that it's free. I'd say as soon as Cloud comes up they should pretty much be neck-and-neck (that is it the rumored features are true)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

XJGunz
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 4:04:56 PM

Plus, I don't understand why I have 6 thumb downs. I'm sorry I think that the Live service has more features. I'm sorry, I think PSN is doing a lot to close that gap. I don't know what else to say. Yes, I do think Live is superior, but I'm not saying that PSN is the worst service ever. PSN is doing a lot of things right, and whats best is that it's free. I'd say as soon as Cloud comes up they should pretty much be neck-and-neck (that is it the rumored features are true)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:32:00 AM

i think more people will buy a 360 simply because they see a $100 difference

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:09:35 AM

Or maybe it's because Microsoft is always improving the service? Or perhaps it's the fact that Update to Live go across all game past, present, and future. Live isn't an Online Gaming Portal... it's heart of the Xbox 360. Microsoft wont be one upped this gen because Sony didn't understand until it was almost to late how important online was. Microsoft made many mistakes with the 360, but integrating Xbox Live so closely into the system effectively making it the heart that beats the blood of the system they really struck gold.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 13 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:21:22 AM

they struck Gold alright, by ripping 50 extra bones out of gamers hands for a feature that should be free.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:54:54 AM

Nicely said World...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:31:55 AM

@cueil

Sony could have understood perfectly that online was important, but the PS2 was not in a position to support online gaming in the same way as the Xbox or the current generation of game consoles.

When PS2 launched the network infrastructure was not sufficient to support online gaming, and the console had no HDD. By the time the original Xbox was slapped together (at least two years after the PS2 design was final) network infrastructure and gaming had evolved to the point where online gaming was more important and viable. Not only that but Microsoft brought experience of online gaming in the world of DOS and Windows, so they were better placed than Sony to implement something online with Xbox.

Sony did at least modify the PS2 design with the slim systems including an Ethernet port by default. There are a lot of PS2 games that featured online play, although with no Sony network architecture it's obviously a piecemeal solution each time. So whether Sony understood or not, they weren't able to do anything with a complete network architecture until PS3 arrived.

Frankly it's more than a little comical to me that you dis Sony for missing the online thing when the PS2 has sold in excess of 140 million units despite having no structured online component to it's architecture. Not only that but the sales for the PS3 are actually quite comparable to the Xbox360 year for year, so it's not like the 360 has been setting the heather alight, except in the US and UK (something about English speaking gamers and their appetite for FPS games perhaps?).

I have to say that it's interesting, the way in which Sony is seen as lagging behind in online gaming when it started with Evercrack on PCs and has sold a ridiculous number of PS2s capable of online gaming. If I remember correctly with the exception of the PC based MMOs, the SONY PS2 has the largest number of online players of any console gaming platform. ANY console platform.

Last edited by Highlander on 6/23/2009 11:33:14 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 @ 12:47:06 PM

@Cueil

"Or maybe it's because Microsoft is always improving the service?"

Clearly you know nothing of PSN and that it gets updated about every month or so with improvements.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:26:10 AM
Reply

PSN is absolutely amazing when looking at it in retrospect. I remember when I first got my ps3 in early February 2007 (a 60 gig one, god I miss it, it fell off the T.V. stand and broke (out of warranty i might add, so I upgraded like 6 or 7 months ago to an 80 gig.). The amount of T.V. shows and movies they offer in SD and HD for rental and purchase is absolutely insane at this point. They are finally getting the hint about putting up all he best PS1 titles... all they need now is to keep up the movies/TV, quality PS1 games for download and finally, somehow find a way to create a free downloadable or include a software ps2 emulator in a system update to allow all the non PS2 BC ps3's to play ps2 games, offer all the classic ps2 games for download and Sony is F-ing set when combined with all the quality ps3 exclusives coming out. When they pull the 100 dollar price drop, (I am willing to wager around the holiday season because their production costs should be profitable by now according to a 2006 Merryil Lynch assessment.) Playstation is going to gain on everyone, even wii eventually.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:58:40 AM

You're optimistic and there is nothing wrong with that, but try and temper that with reality. The PS3 is 8 million Units behind. If they outsold Microsoft by 100k/mo(unlikely) it would take 7 years to catch up to Microsoft. If Microsoft responds with their own price cut... especially if the Arcade drops to 150 with the new Valhalla chipset that is 45nm and has GPU on CPU allegedly the tables could be turned again. When it comes to financial strength Sony can ill afford to get in a price war with Microsoft.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 18 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:18:11 AM

Cueil read my long post up top. Sounds to me like you have not a clue about PSN as it sounds to me like you don't own one my friend. Read the post at the top of the comments section and learn something my friend. I've probably had more experience with both units bud then you have and to say that Live is better is a load of crap. Do some research and if you don't have a PS3 and basing your comments on opinion, do some research. Live is not better by any means. Get educated.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:24:46 AM

@Cueil
Unlike your broad statement just attacking my optimism whilst trying to hide that fact that you were attacking it at all, I was actually basing the brunt of my statement on real hard facts and projections. You have to understand the amount of exclusives coming out for sony in 2009-2011 when compared to microsoft and you have to understand the production cost of ps3 goes down and down, eventually the price will drop and eventually because ps3 has a custom chip set that is far more future proof than 360 and wii, it will pull ahead though its growing library. I don't know what is so hard to understand about Sony eventually coming in 1st or 2nd place in the console war. This system will have no problem lasting 10 years, hell, if ps2 could last 10 years im damn sure ps3 can. They (sony)only won (by miles I might add, the 5th and 6th generation wars), you would think they might have some sort of business idea on how to be successful. I really, really hope, you understand sony is selling systems at a year behind disadvantage and still selling faster than xbox360 was at that time respectively. So ponder that for a minute, I think Jawknee has you pinned pretty good, the guy at wal-mart who tries to persuade customers to buy the 360 and 360 games.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:54:13 AM

@Cueil

Sales figures....are you still comparing current Xbox sales against PS3 sales from December 2008? Sounds like it. And before ANYONE leaps in with VGCHARTZ. VGChartz was quoting 22.3 million as a current figure not so long ago despite Sony clearly stating that it had SOLD 22.3 million units as at the end of December 2008.

However that aside, there is a bigger point i want to address here. The mentality that you display with the whole Sony losing MS winning thing is flawed. If PS3 and 360 had launched at the same time and been in the market the same time, a gap of 6 million or so units would be significant. However, the 360 launched a year earlier. The sales game is almost exactly what one would expect to see if both units sold at the same rate since their launch.

But this winner/loser mentality is pointless. With a long life cycle this generation, we could easily be looking at consoles that by year 7 have sold roughly equivalent numbers. For example, Let's suppose that after 7 years of Xbo360 availability it's sold 60 million units, and along side it (with a year less on the market) the PS3 may have sold 58 million. I'm not saying these are the real projections, it's just an illustration. Even if there were only 2 million units difference in lifetime sales, you would still be shouting about Microsoft winning and Sony losing. The gap could be 10 consoles, and I suspect some would continue to crow about 'winning'.

Apart from the large number of failed units that Microsoft has sold replacements for (wonder how many millions of units that actually is) the truth is that as long as both game consoles are profitable over their product life, both companies and all gamers are winners.

This 'competition' or war is a false one, because it really doesn't matter as long as everyone turns a profit. During the current economic situation, that's not an easy thing to do, for anyone.

In my personal opinion, I think that PS3 sales will tick upwards with a price cut, and with a new slim model and with the launch of GT5 and FFXIII. I think a more sustainable up-tick for PS3 will happen when the economy improves and stops depressing sales of HDTVs. BluRay is selling very strongly, and for the vast majority of consumers download is not an option, nor will it be anytime soon. As HDTV sales pickup, and BluRay continues to mature, PS3 is well placed to take advantage of both trends.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 @ 12:40:41 PM

@Cueil

That the 360 is 8 million units ahead of the PS3 doesn't really matter. Just like it doesn't matter that the 360 is 100 million units behind the PS2.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:35:07 AM
Reply

i really dont see the big deal about who has a better online service
because in reality they both play games online

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:37:32 AM

I know why most people feel it a big deal, 99.8% of the time it is strictly due to fanboyism. A sad un-subjective reality.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

oldmike
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:43:14 AM

thing is that with muti game whats better online will get someone to pick one over the other
PSN sadly still gets a bad rap

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:02:01 AM

The old saying "you get what you pay for" is how people veiw these two services. If Microsoft screws up they are obligated to refund the diffrence or give something of equal or greater value. Sony has no such reason or need to... if their service is offline it's tuff titty unless Sony is feeling generous.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 17 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:28:08 AM

Well, people like Cueil need to justify paying an extra 50 bones a year for online, so they rag on PSN. And now that there is no real reasoning behind such nonsense people like that get kinda upset that they have to pay so they just cling to the "Our service is better" uninformed opinion.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 6/23/2009 2:28:59 AM

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:03:39 AM

Well Cueil from my experience there was constant lag and hiccups on live as opposed to PSN. your "get what you pay for" claim doesn't hold water. 1st I rarely have connectivty issues on PSN. Only when Sony is updating the store and I find it better not to have to deal with hassling Sony for any refunds while with live it was a constant battle with those people.

Like I said on another thread. Your that guy at wal-mart or gamestop who tries to convince everyone interested in a console to buy a 360 while simultaneously swapping out the floor model with a new one once a week due to hardware failures.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:53:59 PM

Well even if you do have better service with Live, it won't matter much if your system red rings. Hmmm...I guess you DO get what you pay for huh? 360 owners seem to think in the short run, and PS3 owners seem to think in the long run. But it doesn't matter anyway, because competition only helps the consumer.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hobgoblin
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:42:15 AM
Reply

I have to say that as of recent (ie in the last few months) stability has been much better on PSN. However, overall people still feel that Live has PSN beat, BUT only slightly (and only with regards to 2 features: in-game chat and party invites).

Whilst I personally might not have any need for in-game chat and party invites, I think they are the functions needed that will then bring PSN on a par with Live.

While there are some areas that PSN needs to sort out, both in the UK (movie store, more PS1 classics) and overall (in game chat and party system), I feel that, as a free service, PSN is doing very well since its inception 2-3 years ago.

One thing that Sony has done right (UK and parts of Europe) is the introduction of Vidzone, which I have to say is an amazing application. It's just a shame that all PS3's don't have access to this service.

Home (at least for me) is nothing spectacular at the moment. Again, UK-wise, get more spaces in there, more game-launching, and overall, let people use their Home avatar as their psn-id picture, as those haven't been updated since the Store had it's makeover in April 2008?!?!

PS Cloud sounded interesting, but just read over on PS3 section on Joystiq that latest "leaked" screenshots have been debunked by Jeff from Official PS3 blog. Shame really, because they did look pretty good :( (mind you, they've denied "rumours" before, only for them to become fact a little bit later ;)).



Last edited by hobgoblin on 6/23/2009 1:47:51 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TEG3SH
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:20:57 AM
Reply

WORLDENDSWITHYOU
ur sooooo right i totaly agree i'm one of those suckers who still pay 50 usd just to play GEARS
pathetic i know
i hope sony gets the new gears

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:43:26 PM

if u can afford it good for u, but MS might lose guys like u over it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

N a S a H
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 5:32:24 AM
Reply

Cueil, stop replying to EVERY single comment with something defending MS or Live. People have a right to an opinion just like you. So just stop.

I think that PSN is still behind live really. However, if you compare them for the ammount of time they've both been out, PSN is ahead IMO.

Again though, US PSN store is different. You guys get movies and much more content. Us in europe, we don't have movies on our PSN store and we get games much later than you do.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:06:18 AM
Reply

I barely spend time on LIVE, its PSN all day everyday.

Last edited by www on 6/23/2009 6:06:56 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jmo_INDY_Repub
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:07:12 AM
Reply

you dont get movies? thats odd, we even get movies on our PSP.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:00:39 AM

not all of us....ugh canada is a country too!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AwRy108
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:16:13 AM
Reply

PSN is great, but it's still sorely lacking in cross-game matchmaking features.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slayerkillemall
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:29:03 AM
Reply

cueil you've hit gold my friend,
"you get what you pay for"

exactly why i and many own playstation we've bought the console,we've bought the games,we've already paid for online.thats why its FREE.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:11:46 AM

indeed. PS3 is certainly worth every penny

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:23:27 AM
Reply

it is funny how even though 360 has some cool features like in game voice chat, voice message and what not........ they still don't have a damn web browser!!!

"ooooh facebook app!!!"... psshh please who cares??

"OMG twitter!!!"... what's the big deal??

ps3 can already check that stuff out in its web browser

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:30:39 AM

Maybe they'll patch it to add web functions and brick another million 360's. Tools.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:28:54 AM
Reply

has anyone else had a 8002AD23 error code before?
ive been getting them every 10 minutes this week and being signed of the PSN.
its realy starting to piss me off, ive rang sony 3 times and they say we cant give out confidential information.
so in other words fucked if we know.
another thing download speeds on my ps3 are realy weird some times i download a update for a game arround 70MB and it takes 4 hours, and sometimes i download the same ammount and its done in 1.
like 2 days ago i downloaded pain and it took 3 hours, than today i download a few movies which were about 600MB more than pain and it took 1.
or last week i downloaded the bionic commando update 18MB 2 hours to download.
today i downloaded the latest KZ2 update 80MB less than 20 minutes ?????????????
how can 18MB take 2 hours but 80MB take 20 minutes
im lost!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 8:06:57 AM

Nope never happened to me. Only time I see the speed of downloading content slow down is when a huge update for a popular title hits PSN and everyone who owns that title is downloading the update. Servers seem to get a little bogged down, but that's it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 8:41:17 AM

perhaps your internet provider? or maybe just something with the connection?

idk cause sometimes it'll just randomly sign me out of PSN on it's own, but i think for me its just signal strength
(my ps3 is pretty far away from my router)

and alot of times i have problems with resistance 2 like it won't let me connect to the server

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:40:02 AM

Yes I have been having that same problem! It's really annoying....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Karosso
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:09:14 AM

Mess around with your routers MTU size, it might help!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Karosso
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:10:25 AM

By the way, are you using wireless?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JPBooch
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:43:05 AM

Sounds like a crappy connection. I was getting a DNS error that was fixed when I reset the router. Also, like another guy eluded to wireless connections are not nearly as stable as a wired one. I hard wired my PS3 and the dropped connections became a lot more infrequent. I also bumped my ISP to 30mb/sec but truthfully didnt see any difference from 5 mb/sec.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:09:54 PM

That error is most commonly due to a router configuration. More often than not it's related the the UPnP setting or the NAT type. It's not the MTU size. If you check your Network connection properties on your PS3 and your connection is NAT type 3, you will need to make some changes. If UPnP is enabled on your router and your PS3, something has forced a configuration change on the router and your PS3 doesn't like the change. This can happen if you use a PC for a media server. Windows based Media server PCs like to act as the Master in a UPnP configuration, and can force configuration changes on the router.

Personally I have my PS3s assigned static IP addresses in my local network, I have disabled UPnP both at the router and on the PS3s. Routers will differ, but by doing this both PS3s now report NAT type 2 and not type 3, and we've had no issues with getting kicked off PSN.

The NAT type your PS3 reports is actually important. Type 3 is not desireable and will result in unstable online play and disconnections.

See message 13 in this thread...

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=psnetwork&thread.id=120739&view=by_date_ascending&page=2

...for a more detailed explanation of other steps to take.

Also lookup information on the Playstation home site regarding UPnP settings, router settings and NAT Type. There is a lot of information out there.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:21:59 PM

Short version of my other post...

Disable UPnP on your PS3 (and the router too if you can). Assign your PS3 a static address on your LAN - basically tell DHCP that your PS3 will always use a particular address instead of having one dynamically assigned. You want to see NAT Type 2 in your connection properties, not NAT type 3.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:59:07 PM

So true Highlander. I had a buddy whose router was set up incorrectly. He had a horrible time staying connected to PSN. I had him do the network internet connection test and asked him what his NAT setting read and he said it was on NAT3. Right there I knew what his problem was. He phoned up Sony's customer service and his internet provider and they helped him reconfigure his router. Apparantly one problem he had was his routers UPnP was disabled.

After doing the necessary adjustments and after doing another connection test on his PS3, his Nat setting came up as a 2.

So just remember people, when you go into the network settings on you're xmb and do the internet connection test under NAT setting this is how it should read:

1) If you use direct modem to you're PS3 with no router your NAT setting should be a 1.
2) If you use a modem connected to a router your NAT setting should be a 2.
3) And if your NAT setting ends up being a 3, that is a NO NO. Make sure first you go into your router setup and see if you're UPnP is enabled (Universal Plug N Play).

Last thing that I need to emphasize is if you're internet and router connection is working great - don't change a thing. Stay away from updating the firmware on your router as some firmware updates can destroy the stability. If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:58:34 PM

@Hoodge

LOL, your friend needed UPnP enabled? LOL. I suspect it depends greatly on the router. I don't think mine does a fantastic job implementing UPnP, because I have to disable it or my PS3 always reports NAT type 3.

I absolutely concur about the NAT types. Type 3 is totally unsuitable, I wish the PS3 would object loudly to it.

Great advice about not messing with your router. Very much a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it, unless you know what you're doing. Even when you really do know what you're doing a badly implemented router (D-Link I am looking at you) can still run into trouble.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:04:30 PM

Ya Highlander MY friend and I both have Linksys brands and weird that you disable the UPnP. I've got mine enabled. Not sure what to think. Different brands. But their are other equations that play into that mix as well. You mentioned MTU as well. I'm not totally knowledgeable about that, but you sure sound to be. You're more of a computer Techy then I could hope to be.
Just know I followed my instruction manual to a T and the Linksys website has a lot of help in key ways for healthy router operations.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NinjaMidget
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:51:39 PM

maybe your playstation is punishing you for buying bionic commando!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:08:06 PM

I only wish I know what UPnP and NAT type were. at least I dont have problems with them, I think.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:49:52 PM

@_________________

I have 2 list of codes, but your's isn't on either of the lists.

But just in case you might've wrote down the code wrong, here's the only code I have that comes even close to your code.

8002AD3D - Cannot Log into PSN - Is the PSN down? Try manually configuring your PS3 IP info - Try disabling media server connection in the PS3.

Hope that helps

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 1:32:43 AM

I got that same problem with random download speeds man.

I have no idea. The last KZ2 update would take like 4 hours when I just downloaded a 1GB demo the other day in 2 hours.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:42:24 AM
Reply

Last of all Cueil, I'm gonna make this point and I don't think anybody can argue with me.

When it comes to , "Live has more features and they keep on improving the service," comment you stated, all I can say bud back to you is, "And it keeps on bogging their system down more and more as they add more".

If you go to Teamxbox.com and N4G.com, Microsoft has to implement a new dashboard for Live to replace the NXE as it has encountered a lot of instability and lagging issues. I have experienced it and it is awful. They should of kept the original dashboard as it ran 10 times better than this new one.

Go on the Xbox forums on Xbox.com and read all the angry and frustrated comments from the consumers. Like I said bud, do some research and educate yourself. If Microsoft keeps on ever expanding their so called amazing features like Facebook, Twitter, Live 101, etc, I sure hope they think about adding more server base warehouses to accomidate it.

Here's the key thing you got to consider. When I bought my PS3 and 360 the most important feature for me was Online Gaming, not cute little features. I'm a gamer and I spend most of my time play my games online. All those other nice features on Live and PSN are really not that important, and If you consider that Live has more and better features than PSN, have fun bud. Enjoy, cause when it comes down to gaming, Live's shared servers don't hold a candle against PSN's dedicated servers. Need I say anymore?

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:12:04 PM

"Live has more features and they keep on improving the service,"

If anyone has been improving service it's the PSN.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:32:06 AM
Reply

I agree Ben!

There are tons of PSN games I like playing.

That said, I still love games like Braid, Kingdom for Keflings, Castle Crashers, and Geometry Wars.

I'm also looking forward to Shadow Complex and 'Splosion Man. I wish these two were coming to PSN so I didn't have to buy them over Live.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:41:09 AM

geometry wars is good

and so is heavy weapon. and now heavy weapon is on ps3

maybe geometry wars will make its way over to ps3..... that'd be cool

if not, well it doesn't matter too much since ps3 has super stardust HD!!

Last edited by Qwarktast1c on 6/23/2009 10:42:07 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JPBooch
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:31:45 AM
Reply

I can only go off of what I know and that's the PSN.

I do get booted on occassion playing games and the only times I had serious problems where with the COD WAW map pack 1 when it first came out and SOCOM Confrontation in its first 2 weeks of release. (WAW actually crashed the whole PSN store across the country)

I have 7 active accounts. 4 for my kids, 1 I play my games on, and 2 I share accounts with. So, the comparisons are skewed. Being able to share games across PS3's makes buying games so much better.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Minishmaru
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:40:23 PM
Reply

Only complaints I have about the PSN vs Live, Live you are able to drown out annoying background nose that is being picked up while I'm waiting for a game to start in CoD4...I can't stand the idiots who have their mics or whatever right next to the speakers! That and not being able to chat with my buddies from any game via a party mode would be nice. I'm playing inFamous and they're playing I dunno...Folklore but still be able to chat without having to be in a match together, would be nice.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:28:38 PM
Reply

Sorry for the echo, but I'm also much happier with PSN than I ever was with live. Much more players in a lobby and much less lag. Those two points are more important to me than having a bunch of kids screaming into my earphones.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SmakRunner2K
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 12:46:17 AM
Reply

I'm sorry...I really didn't want to get into a flame war over this...but someone HAS to be the voice of reason here and stick up for poor Cecil.

Facts about me:

I own both systems (Smak Runner 2K - X360 SmakRunner2K - PSN - Go check them out.)

I like my PS3..a lot. In fact, I've tried to divorce my X360 (mentally) over the past few months. Truth is though...I just can't. Not yet...

Here's the truth:

Ease of use - X360 Don't even try it people...doing so much as reading a message on the PS3 takes a lot more work than on a 360...you can't even argue that point. It's also a hell of a lot easier to find "stuff" on LIVE, and - another in-arguable point forthcoming - there's a LOT more of it. Movies, TV Shows, GAMES (arcade, XNA, and Originals), and whatever. Content-wise, this is a 30 second knock-out. There is no argument to make. Drop it.

BTW...whoever said that the 360 is getting a "new dashboard" because of the NXE issues...you're stupid. It's called an update, and you should be used to them playing on a PS3, because you have to download a trillion of them, and they each take about 10 minutes off your life. X360 dashboard updates happen twice a year, and take less than a minute. Even the switch to NXE. Super-fast.

You wanna say that the PS3 is a "smoother" on-line experience? Fine. I don't notice a difference in performance between the two Networks...but if you do - fine. I'll give it to you.

We'd talk about Home...but really, what's the point. Even some of the most die-hard Sony loyalists bury their head in the sand over that one...'Cmon. Really? Let's walk around, watch 2-week old movie and game trailers, do the running man dance, and watch people "walk by" at the mall. Woo. Hoo.

I will say this though...that little scavenger hunt thingy that just ended was a START. More of that and less bubble machines will be a good thing for Home...I guess. I'm not saying X360 avatars are so great...but they're kind of invisible really...they don't interfere w/ anything. I don't give them much thought TBO.

Lets also not gloss-over the staggering difference in userbase either. 8 million is 8 million, and this discussion isn't about 5 years from now..it's about now. Right now. 8 million is a lot more potential rivals, partners, ect. And the profiles on the X360 are night and day over PSN profiles. You get a lot more info on people's play styles, habits, who their friends are, where they are from, whatever on LIVE - which helps to decide who to play what with when. Again...member information is a landslide. Don't even try to argue it.

Achievements > Trophys, but it's CLOSE. I like the "level-up" system Sony has in place...but I hate the fact that 75% of the available library doesn't support the feature. Too late to the party right now, but we'll see how the system evolves...

Look...I'm on my 4th X360. I've TRIED to divorce the thing, trust me when I tell ya. But LIVE and the "value add" factor (not to mention a great lineup of games...not saying PS3's lineup isn't great...just saying) are just too damn good to over look.

If you're saying "I won't pay for it" it's because you can't afford it. Be honest with yourself. If you have a 360, you want to be on LIVE. It's silly to even pretend that you don't, so stop it.

And leave Cecil alone you jackals! This, I COMMAND!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 1:00:14 AM

Most everything you wrote isn't "fact;" it's just opinion. In NO way do I find the Marketplace more accessible or easier to navigate than the Store (and I doubt many would agree with you), and furthermore, you clearly haven't given any respect to Home or the changes and updates that have been made. Your description is that of January and is woefully inadequate.

There also is NOT a significant amount more in WORTHY content on Live. Reviews and fan feedback can tell you that most of the top-rated downloadable titles (Wipeout HD, Flower, etc.) are PSN exclusives, and the PS1 classics compared to the Xbox original classics...well, if it isn't a joke now, it soon will be.

And lastly, if the Network has closed the gap so quickly - and indeed it has - this means Live has been standing still. Or, if not standing still, not advancing fast enough to keep the PSN well behind. Oh, and maybe you could just accept that any rebuttals leveled at Cueil are plenty valid...far more so than any of his original statements.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:51:24 AM

@SmakRunner2K

Just way too much "Much ado about nothing".

Oh, and about your command,"You command absolutely......nothing"!!!!

"Yawn" Go bore somebody at another site

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 @ 1:17:55 PM


I don't own a 360, and haven't tried Xbox lives cause my friends who do won't pay for the accounts.

I do have some responses to some of your comments.

"...doing so much as reading a message on the PS3 takes a lot more work than on a 360..."

What? I hit the PS button, go all the way over to the right on XCMB, scroll up to the inbox and click on the message. That, in and of itself may not be the best way, but that isn't a lot of work.

"It's also a hell of a lot easier to find "stuff" on LIVE, and - another in-arguable point forthcoming - there's a LOT more of it. Movies, TV Shows, GAMES (arcade, XNA, and Originals), and whatever..."

#1) I have no problems finding things on the PSN. I go to the video/games buttons and click on view all by title. It's not that difficult to navigate. As for more movies/tv shows/whatever/ doesn't anyone really care who's service is better? Do you? Do I? Does the gaming community?

"...an update, and you should be used to them playing on a PS3, because you have to download a trillion of them, and they each take about 10 minutes off your life. X360 dashboard updates happen twice a year, and take less than a minute..."

You're complaining about a 10 minute update each month huh? Give me a break.

"You wanna say that the PS3 is a "smoother" on-line experience?"

Don't know if it's smoother, but Warhawk plays flawlessly.

"We'd talk about Home...Let's walk around, watch 2-week old movie and game trailers, do the running man dance, and watch people "walk by" at the mall. Woo. Hoo."

I am complete agreement with you on Home.

"8 million is 8 million"

So what's your point? The 360 is 100 million units behind the PS2, does that mean the 360 is inferior in any way to the PS2? No it doesn't.

There are more people using PSN than people using Xbox Live. So I don't see why we care about the difference of total consoles sold. They both sell about the same number/month.

"profiles on the X360 are night and day over PSN profiles"

As far as playing games goes, why do we care about profiles? Personally, couldn't care less.

"8 million is a lot more potential rivals, partners, ect. And the profiles on the X360 are night and day over PSN profiles."

"which helps to decide who to play what with when."

I play with whoever on online games reguardless of profiles. If someone is good, I'll send them a msg and befriend them and play them in that game again. Again, don't care at all about profiles.

"Don't even try to argue it."

"Achievements > Trophys, but it's CLOSE."

Agreed.

"Look...I'm on my 4th X360. I've TRIED to divorce the thing, trust me when I tell ya."

"If you're saying "I won't pay for it" it's because you can't afford it."

No. Most people won't pay $50 for a pencil, that doesn't mean they can't afford it, it means they feel their getting screwed on cost.

I should be able to play Warhawk once every couple of months over a couple of years without having to pay and pay and pay for it.

If you're enjoying the 360, and you find it more fun, then by all means, have a blast.

However, I feel some of your points are silly/irrelevant. I don't think anyone buys a PS3 or 360 based on profiles, downloadable TV shows, or who's sold the most total consoles when 1 system came out a year later.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:37:00 AM
Reply

im using wireless at the moment.
but i normaly use wired,
ive played arround with my router settings changed everything sony told me to do and still nothing.
i manualy set the IP adress as the first one the router gives out, NAT is type 2 because i have to use a router.
its definetly 8002AD23.
and the nets not dropping out because i get that error code i get signed out than i go to the XMB hit sign in and within 10 seconds im back in.
if it was a drop out it would take longer than that i would think
and whats realy confusing download speeds using wired or wireless are the same.
normaly its alot faster to use wired for my laptop than wireless but with my ps3 it makes no difference.
im even thinking of getting a dlink DGL-4500 router its there fastest router but its not cheap 300 bucks.

Last edited by ___________ on 6/24/2009 3:46:49 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:48:40 AM
Reply

MTU sony told me to set it at 1500 so thats what its on now.
i dont want to play arround with the routter settings to much because if i stuff something up my dad will slice my head off.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 11:57:07 AM

Unless you altered the MTU before the trouble started, there should be no requirement to change it. When setting the MTU size you are basically telling the router what the maximum data packet size will be - how many bytes it can send at one time.

When the MTU is set too low, the result is more data packets are sent for the same amount of data transmitted - in other words it becomes inefficient. However for your service to be so badly affected that you are getting kicked of PSN, the MTU would have to be set very low indeed. A MTU of 1500 means that each data packet contains 1500 bytes of data. an MTU of 100 would mean that each packet would only have 100 bytes of data, and it would take 15 times as many packets to send the same data. 15 times as many packets means 15 times as much overhead on the data transmission.

If you have a DSL connection, your MTU should typically be set to 1492 which is the maximum length of a data packet that DSL protocols support. If you set it to something higher, what will happen is that the router will automatically split data packets resulting in two data packets instead of one.

Here is a pretty decent explanation of everything to do with the MTU and how to go about setting it.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/5793

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, June 25, 2009 @ 3:56:32 AM
Reply

i havent changed the MTU sony told me to set it to 1500 but it was already on that for as long as i can remember.
im useing naked DLS ATM.
which is supose to be exactly the same as ADSL2+ but a little slower, well thats what optus told me.
im going to try that router see if that fixes the problem, because my router ATM only supports 56MBps wireless and 100MBps wired, i could be getting a much faster connection rate with a better router, so if it does not fix the problem its still worth it.

Last edited by ___________ on 6/25/2009 3:57:28 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ricochet
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 @ 8:59:30 AM
Reply

The only real thing XBL got against the PS3 is the "Graphical Interface". It's cleaner, more easy to navigate and can connect with friends easily.

But "online" has ALWAYS been about the multi-player in-game. Aside from LittleBigPlanet -- Killzone 2, Team Fortress 2, Turok, Resistance has delivered lag-free. And THAT'S what true online is about, not paying a double digit number for a better interface.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a timed Xbox exclusive, and...
...I'm so pissed, I can't see straight.
...I'm annoyed, but I can be patient.
...I'm not caring much at all.
...I think it's actually a good thing.

Previous Poll Results