Honest question, why is the general consensus that Live > PSN?

#101ThePylonPosted 11/13/2013 3:56:45 PM(edited)
TreGooda posted...

Yes, free to the developers.

http://www.oxm.co.uk/64177/all-xbox-one-games-have-access-to-free-dedicated-servers-and-computing-power/

That's one of many links. Google it.


Psh I aint googling jack.
That's good for the xbone though, now if I hear an xbox game does not have dedicated servers, I know for a fact that the developer is too lazy to manage a free server, and should not be supported at all.

EDIT: I wonder if Ubisoft will be the first, EA pisses me off but I can't see a world where they don't take full advantage of hockey and battlefield on dedicated servers.
---
I play too many different games to even care.
#102miethaPosted 11/13/2013 6:03:33 PM
Have you USED them? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be asking that question. EVERYTHING works better on live than PSN. Downloading, streaming, browsing the ****ing store. EVERYTHING.
#103CapwnDPosted 11/13/2013 6:49:19 PM
mietha posted...
Have you USED them? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be asking that question. EVERYTHING works better on live than PSN. Downloading, streaming, browsing the ****ing store. EVERYTHING.


On the 360 it doesn't even feel like a store. On the PS3 you have to leave the dashboard to "go to the store". But on the 360 you just slide right over to the store, or go back to your games which are just clicks and seconds away.

That's the kind of thing that people are talking about when they say "more integrated"
---
Death to Videodrome, Long Live the New Flesh
#104120N7Posted 11/13/2013 7:01:48 PM
Live is the main reason I am getting an XB1 first. As owner of both a 360 and a PS3, it always shocked me how unintuitive and clunky PSN was.

Party chat aside, the sound quality of chat on PSN is shocking compared to XBL. There's always crackle or echo. It's one of several flaws which IMHO make multiplayer feel like a chore on the PS3.

It doesn't surprise me that there are issues with PSN on the PS4. Software is not Sony's strongest suit.
#105TheAvianheartPosted 11/13/2013 7:55:35 PM
I prefer PSN to Live personally. Live might be better intergrated, but you still need to pay for it on top of any other subscription based stuff you have. Wanna use Netflix? Already paying Netflix or Lovefilm a premium? Well we're not getting any of that, you're gonna need Gold aswell. And even though you're paying, we're still going to give you advertisements. PSN doesn't make you pay for PS+ to use those services , and even when it's mandatory for multiplayer on PS4, they've confirmed you don't need PS+ to use them.

Plus the biggest draw for me with PSN is PS+, which Games for Gold doesn't even BEGIN to catch up to. You know what I got this month? Metal Gear Rising and Remember Me, two mainstream games from this year. What did GfG get? A World of Keflings and Iron Brigade. It's not even a contest. And yes, people say "Oh, but you only RENT the games, you keep them with GfG". You know what? You get all the games back once you restart your payments on PS+, it's not like they're lost forever, just put away until you can afford to pay again. And if you're going to be continuing to pay for PS+, as anyone who gets a ps4 will need to be for multiplayer, then what's the difference?
---
Welcome to Swords. I like Cornelia.
3DS Friendcode: 2793-0592-3206
#106SyphonFilterAddictPosted 11/13/2013 8:26:38 PM
Speed of updates, store is built into the OS, isn't down for maintenance as often, etc...
---
What?! No one dashy-dine on Stavros!