Online Service Battle: Network Outstripping Live
See Full ImageWhen 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
Subscribe to Ben Dutka on Twitter
Comments (Beta)
chicko1983
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:34:01 PM
3 up, 4 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:26:16 AM
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..
24 up, 3 down
Wage SLAVES
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:38:45 AM
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)
5 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:50:56 AM
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.
2 up, 0 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:39:10 AM
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.
0 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:16:41 PM
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...
3 up, 0 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:44:57 PM
0 up, 0 down
NinjaMidget
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:26:19 PM
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
1 up, 0 down
Jian2069
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:33:43 PM
Reply
15 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:36:54 PM
true ture true
true true true true
Again...true!
6 up, 0 down
The Stig
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:30:18 AM
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.
2 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:53:48 AM
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....
3 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:39:20 PM
Reply
^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!
6 up, 1 down
Qwarktast1c
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:50:38 PM
PSone classics keep the excitement/nostalgic feeling going longer than any arcade classic will
2 up, 0 down
LimitedVertigo
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:49:35 PM
Reply
2 up, 6 down
kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:46:58 AM
0 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:58:26 AM
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 TheHighlander on 6/23/2009 10:59:06 AM
3 up, 0 down
Jed
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:58:21 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
LimitedVertigo
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:03:43 PM
1 up, 5 down
The Stig
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:33:10 AM
1 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:27:29 AM
2 up, 1 down
kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:48:50 AM
1 up, 0 down
G-WiZ199
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:02:16 PM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:13:09 PM
3 up, 0 down
jmo_INDY_Repub
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:20:27 PM
Reply
4 up, 3 down
Deleted User
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 11:32:40 PM
Reply
That includes myself. I would much rather have an avatar that everyone could see that represents me.
I will never pay for online. Never.
4 up, 2 down
Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:09:24 AM
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).
4 up, 0 down
Cueil
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:12:42 AM
0 up, 4 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:01:29 AM
4 up, 2 down
Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:15:21 PM
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.
0 up, 2 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:52:12 PM
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.
2 up, 1 down
Deleted User
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:49:26 PM
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.
1 up, 0 down
XJGunz
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:07:10 AM
Reply
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.
3 up, 6 down
Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:10:47 AM
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?
4 up, 0 down
XJGunz
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:53:39 AM
3 up, 5 down
Scarecrow
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:17:03 AM
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.
3 up, 1 down
kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:29:56 AM
microsoft can have the title for best online capabilities
because sony dominates when it comes to exclusive games
4 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:05:47 AM
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>
7 up, 0 down
XJGunz
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 4:04:54 PM
1 up, 0 down
XJGunz
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 4:04:56 PM
0 up, 0 down
ffrulez
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:49:00 AM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:32:00 AM
4 up, 0 down
Cueil
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:09:35 AM
0 up, 13 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:21:22 AM
12 up, 1 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:31:55 AM
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 TheHighlander on 6/23/2009 11:33:14 AM
7 up, 0 down
bridgera
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 @ 12:47:06 PM
"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.
1 up, 0 down
Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:26:10 AM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Cueil
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:58:40 AM
0 up, 18 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:18:11 AM
12 up, 0 down
Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:24:46 AM
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.
6 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:54:13 AM
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.
6 up, 0 down
bridgera
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 @ 12:40:41 PM
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.
1 up, 0 down
kratos17
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:35:07 AM
Reply
because in reality they both play games online
4 up, 1 down
Natalisrubbish
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:37:32 AM
4 up, 0 down
oldmike
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:43:14 AM
PSN sadly still gets a bad rap
0 up, 0 down
Cueil
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:02:01 AM
1 up, 17 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:28:08 AM
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 6/23/2009 2:28:59 AM
13 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:03:39 AM
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.
6 up, 0 down
NiteKrawler
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 11:53:59 PM
0 up, 0 down
w3r3w0lf
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:42:15 AM
Reply
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 w3r3w0lf on 6/23/2009 1:47:51 AM
0 up, 0 down
TEG3SH
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:20:57 AM
Reply
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
2 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 1:43:26 PM
0 up, 0 down
N a S a H
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 5:32:24 AM
Reply
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.
4 up, 0 down
www
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:06:18 AM
Reply
Last edited by www on 6/23/2009 6:06:56 AM
4 up, 0 down
jmo_INDY_Repub
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:07:12 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
kevinater321
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:00:39 AM
0 up, 0 down
AwRy108
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:16:13 AM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
slayerkillemall
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:29:03 AM
Reply
"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.
7 up, 0 down
Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:11:46 AM
5 up, 0 down
Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:23:27 AM
Reply
"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
9 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:30:39 AM
4 up, 0 down
___________
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:28:54 AM
Reply
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!
2 up, 5 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 8:06:57 AM
2 up, 0 down
Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 8:41:17 AM
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
0 up, 0 down
Bugzbunny109
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:40:02 AM
0 up, 0 down
Karosso
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:09:14 AM
0 up, 0 down
JPBooch
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:43:05 AM
0 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:09:54 PM
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.
2 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:21:59 PM
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.
3 up, 0 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 12:59:07 PM
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.
3 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:58:34 PM
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.
1 up, 0 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 6:04:30 PM
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.
0 up, 0 down
NinjaMidget
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:51:39 PM
0 up, 0 down
Jed
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:08:06 PM
0 up, 0 down
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
0 up, 0 down
Banky A
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 1:32:43 AM
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.
0 up, 0 down
HOODGE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 7:42:24 AM
Reply
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?
8 up, 0 down
Jed
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:12:04 PM
If anyone has been improving service it's the PSN.
2 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 9:32:06 AM
Reply
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.
1 up, 0 down
Qwarktast1c
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:41:09 AM
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
0 up, 0 down
JPBooch
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 10:31:45 AM
Reply
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.
1 up, 0 down
Minishmaru
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 2:40:23 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
RadioHeader
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 @ 4:28:38 PM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
SmakRunner2K
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 12:46:17 AM
Reply
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!
0 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 1:00:14 AM
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.
3 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:51:24 AM
Just way too much "Much ado about nothing".
Oh, and about your command,"You command absolutely......nothing"!!!!
"Yawn" Go bore somebody at another site
0 up, 0 down
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.
1 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:37:00 AM
Reply
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
0 up, 1 down
___________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 3:48:40 AM
Reply
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.
0 up, 0 down
TheHighlander
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 11:57:07 AM
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
1 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, June 25, 2009 @ 3:56:32 AM
Reply
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
0 up, 0 down
Ricochet
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 @ 8:59:30 AM
Reply
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.
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Reply
Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 10:20:33 PM
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.