Network now...NEWS
Sony No Longer Playing “Catch Up” With Xbox Live
Sony Computer Entertainment America’s director of PlayStation Network Operations, Eric Lempel, believes the PSN is now on a par with Microsoft’s rival online service, Xbox Live.
“I don't think there's a lot of catch up [with XBL] anymore. In some cases, I think we've got more, and we've got some other things they don't have,” he told Industry Gamers.
“In terms of strengths, of course we're still free, and we're giving you a lot for free. It's not just free online gaming, but we've got PlayStation Home, which is a massive community and application that's totally free to use.
“I think there's a lot we're doing that in some cases they're not doing, and I don't see a lot of things they're doing that we're not.”
Over the past couple of years Sony has certainly improved PSN, largely by responding to consumer demand and replicating a number of Xbox Live’s most successful features, including cross-game invites, the ability to access the cross-media bar (XMB) in-game, and an achievements system.
Lempel went on to say that Sony currently has no plans to introduce a PS3 games on demand service similar to Microsoft’s, or to make HD streaming of video content available to PS3 owners.
The company is presently working on plans to expand the PSN to a greater number of its consumer devices.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I honestly believe that its a matter of both quality and quantity, not one over the other. XBL offers relativley smooth online gaming, a remarkable and robust array of downloadable content (game demos, pics, trailers, games on demand) an unprecidented heap of community support from various sources and the XBLA. In all honesty I think that if Microsoft are putting so much time and effort into creating and maintaining such a high level of online excellence, then surley somewhere down the line consumers should be expected to pay something. Not only is Live worth every penny, but your getting alot of free stuff with it as well and the quality of what you pay for speaks for itself.
Personally I don't think that PSN will ever have the same level of quality that XBL offers. The only real positive I see on Sony's end is the fact that its online service is free. PS3 owners constantly hold that against 360 owners and to be honest I think that, if recent rumours are true, PS3 owners will soon learn the error of their ways if they have to start paying for their online gaming.
In the meantime 360 owners need to realise that what they are paying for is well worth it and to be frank, it [XBL] doesn't cost an arm and and leg to renew.
For me, the quality of XBL or PSN equates to the quality and frequency of downloadable content (demos, arcade titles etc), and XBLA wins hands down.
PSN never got momentum on it's release schedule and was a nightmare to navigate, so I gave up browsing and just waited for reviews to tell me what to try out.
Nintendo's Virtual Console (+ WiiWare) I used to check on a weekly basis waiting for N64 titles that I would love to play again, but lost interest as the N64 ports are so few and far between.
I also think that Sony and Nintendo have underestimated the barrier a "shop" presents - with XBLA being integrated into the dashboard I check new downloadable game releases every time I boot up the 360. Most of the time there is nothing of interest, but once a fortnight I will find a demo worth downloading, which invariably turns into a full version purchase.
Having both consoles, I'll pick the 360 every time for online gaming, and that's ignoring how nasty the PS3 controller is (which is difficult as it's just as terrible now as it was in 1995). Live is simply a better service, the whole thing is more intuitive to use, and a lot more common sense has gone into it's contruction. People that say live is a waste of money, through Live I've been able to try demos, that have convinced me NOT to buy a game, given that this happens a few times a year, and that otherwise I would have bought, Live actually saves me money.
However on PSN, loads of games don't have demos, and many download-only games don't have demos either, which is stupid.
I'm sure the 17 people that actually use PSN absolutely love it.
I'm surprised you can pull a number as large as that out your ass. Better go'n put some cream on that, mate.
Live is light years ahead of PSN.
you cant play Ikaruga,Metal Slug 3;Mark of The Wolves, King of Fighters 98, Braid, Castle Crashers, Samurai Shodown 2, Gunstar Heroes, R-type HD,Geometry Wars 2,Duke Nukem 3D,Pacman C.E and some other masterpieces trough PSN. All of them online enabled with multiplayer or leaderboards.
not to mention the robust online on full retail games and indie support with Comunity Games...
the party system and other "minor" stuff are the cream of the cup.
you cant play Ikaruga,Metal Slug 3;Mark of The Wolves, King of Fighters 98, Braid, Castle Crashers, Samurai Shodown 2, Gunstar Heroes, R-type HD,Geometry Wars 2,Duke Nukem 3D,Pacman C.E and some other masterpieces trough PSN
Way to totally miss the point, fanboy.
Ignoring the fact that you're partly mixing the respective stores with online gaming for a moment, you get robust online gaming (many games on dedicated servers instead of LIVE's usual peer to peer standard) full retail games and you can't play WIpeout HD or Tekken Dark Ressurection or Nobi Nobi Boy and other masterpieces which all have online enabled functions, many with multiplayer and with leader-boards.
All online gaming functions are still provided for free, that's $500 less than it costs you over the life of the 360.
While the party system is nice on Live I've questioned whether it's a little redundant. If you're all in the same game there's no need to be in a party unless there's just someone else in the game you don't want to chat with. Every time I play L4D I join a party with my friends then join their game but for the life of me I can't figure out why I need to do both.
the party system is great if you wanna have some fun with friends without earing a 15 year old boy calling you "motherfucker"...like in Gears 2...
This was already possible before the party system using a private chat channel.
Or by using PSN. :P
No matter what features they do and don't share, until Xbox Live is free I won't even consider joining it, and will continue to use PSN exclusively. With few exceptions (MMOs I can understand), if you pay to play games online that you already bought, you're a sheep.
Sony are charging publishers for bandwidth. They're still getting their money yet putting out a sub-par service.
How is it sub par?
It does the online gaming part of it, the bit that you're paying $500 for, excellently and for free.
Man, i love the internet, everyone is an expert. lol
It's a good thing they gave us the memo on this. I still thought they were waaay behind in creating a seemless, cohesive, online experience across all games.
I'm going to go turn on my PS3 to check it out...
...
...
hmm.. Still looks like the same PSN to me. No one is using a mic online, I can't send my voice messages from my games, nor can I talk to my friends while doing anything other than playing the exact same game in the exact same session of the game.
Maybe they're announcing where they will be after their next firmware update?
So you're paying an extra $500 over the life of the console to send voice messages from your games, and talk to your friends while doing anything other than playing the exact same game in the exact same session of the game? Oh wait a minute that's all available to silver members!
What value!
Meanwhile we're all enjoying free online gaming.
This but its funny it seems the fanboys are to dumb to realize this they wont respond Ive stated this many times but they all seem to ignore the truth the only thing your paying for is the ability to play that 60 dollar game you just bought online everything else is available to silver members for free.
There's something I can't figure out.
So counting the PSP & PS3, the PSN has the potential to meet 75 million users. XBL has the potential to reach 30 million.users. However, PSN has generated about $180 million dollars in content revenue, but XBL has generated nearly $1 Billion dollars in content revenue - revenue disconnected with subscription revenue.
Are PS3 owners, already in a free mindset, unwilling to spend the money? Is the secret to XBL the fact that getting someone over that initial "hurdle" of payment makes spending money on content easier?
It'd be interesting to see how the numbers break down for sure. You can bet a large part of Live revenue is Halo 3 DLC. Also having to spend money in $6.25 increments makes everybody spend a little more than they'd like. Of all the people who buy on Live how many of us have $0.00 account balance?
Personally I'm more willing to spend money on PSN. I can add exactly the amount I need to buy something and not have it in "points" increments.
I don't think that's necessary.
Looking at it from a large scale, if you subtract 40% of the total - reflecting the later start of PSN, then take 15 - 20 million people who are forced to overspend due to a $6.25 increment requirement; and I think you have your extra revenue.
Thanks,
Did you pull this figure out of your ass just to sound smart? We all know what you've quoted is just a bunch of nonsense, to be honest!
In other words, don't quote silly figures without backing them up with solid rock FACTS! Where are your sources?
No.
First off, you're too late. I had a question for the community, & it was answered. Secondly, even though I did not pull the figures out of my "ass", the question was a bit broader than pseudo-intelligent number rhetoric. The numbers are largely unimportant as everyone knows that, monetarily, XBL is wildly more successful than the PSN. One could argue more content and more robust. To some extent, that's true, but the Playstation Network is pretty capable in its own rite. Using iTunes as an example, I would expect a free service to be a "runaway" success; even if it was a tangled mess - which it isn't
Now thinking of Gift Cards, those are credit card-like devices your Grandmother loads money onto because you haven't called her in 15 years, and all she knows about you is that you don't eat crayons anymore, with those you always pay a few dollars more on something....anything; just to be rid of it. Now multiply that by 20 million.
But don't be down. You're a smart guy. I'll bet you can find those incredible thread-busting, argument-winning numbers you're looking to find. It worked for me. It can work for you too.
Here, I'll send you 8-bit Picard to help you on your journey.
By indrema at 2009-06-28
Dude, you need to learn to close your italic/emphasis tags. You've borked up the whole thread again!
Dreamhunk, you're back! Et cetera.
My thoughts exactly!
Indrema, once again you've outdone yourself.
Well done.
yeh you tell em fellas,
ppl wanna complain about having to pay £300 just to play metal gear 4 yet they have nothing bad to say about paying 70 pence! a week for xbox live and its feature set.
absurd. 70 pence a week is robbery, plain and simple.
Until Live is free, then it hasn't got anything on PSN.
Free online gaming...fuck yeah.
Fact is, the most important feature of PSN/Live is online gaming. On PSN it's free...on Live, well, you all know the score!
PSN is free, Live ain't (with regards to online play).
End of story...
Nothing in life is free. Besides, at 96 cents a week (USD), the cost of XBOX Live is pedestrian. But it still remains that for the most part, there are more third party exclusives on the 360 than PlayStation 3. That can change as easy as the breeze. It's silly, Sony could have pay to play online service for the PS3, just charge half what Microsoft charges and in theory it'd be 100% profit since PSN already does what XBL does (so Sony claims) and that money could go towards Sony Corporation who could really use it right now. As seen with Phantasy Star Universe and Final Fantasy XI, people on PS2 & PS3 will pay to play on a Sony console.
Yeah but over the ten year life of the console (which MS has stated will happen) that's $500 making the 360 the most expensive console ever built. $500 to use basic functions that are free on every other platform, maths is fun.
Fact is though, PSN is free for the consumer, out of the box you can play online with friends, family, etc.
Live isn't so...Xbox consumers are just getting a raw deal and it's going to get worse with those Silverlight based adverts coming to that service.
Live is never worth £39.99 per year. Xbox consumers are just getting ripped off as far as i'm concerned.
Lets all be perfectly honest, ANY statement of quality made by the company that owns the product is TOTALLY meaningless. When you see independents making this type of statement then perhaps it's time to sit up and take notice, until then it's just marketing hot air. So PS3 fanboys, if you really want to make the case that PSN is as good as XBL then find some respected independent source to back you up, how hard can that be if it's true? If you can't find anyone but Sony saying it then i think you know exactly how true it is.
Perhaps to be fair i should also challenge Xbox owners to the find similar sources in favor of XBL over PSN, after all it would seem unjust to make PS3 fans do all the work.
Just to get the ball rolling here is an Xbox Live favoring quote from Stuff Magazine (August 2009) from their gaming article: "Its (XBL) literally five years ahead of Sony's poor online effort.".
Predictably, I don't read Stuff magazine, but that quote sounds more like it's describing the fact that Live has been running for 5 years longer than PSN (ok, it's actually ~4.5yrs).
I'm not in a position to directly compare them, as I don't pay for Live. I am dubious that any slight difference in the service quality is worth £40/year, so i figure i might as well play my online games on PSN.
Thanks for posting that, because I get all my important gaming advice from Stuff Magazine.
Stuff magazine takes gaming very seriously.
By indrema at 2009-07-09
I posted that comment because it is the most recent comparison i was aware of without looking on the internet, so perhaps you'd prefer HubPages- Xbox Live vs PlayStation Network.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Xbox-Live-vs-Playstation-Network
"So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the results of the King of Online place Xbox Live ahead of PlayStation Network, a close battle until the end, but Microsoft just clinched it with their excellent presentation, support and community spirit...I guess you really do get what you pay for..."
Come on Dubs, don't revert to your usual lame excuses, find me something that says PSN is better!
@Nolim: Are you dreamhunk getting up to your old tricks again?
Your link takes me to a blog by a twelve year old called "phlash" who has been a member of whatever hubpages is for 6 weeks, and who's three other articles include "5 killer hangover cures" and "how i get free things from amazon"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just take that in for a moment. This is not even close to a reliable source of gaming information. Do you want me to go and write a blog portraying PSN urinating all over Live? I won't because as I've said, I don't use Live so I don't really know exactly how it compares.
Even more ridiculously, he even calls it a close battle. Supporting the idea that actually PSN and Live are reasonably comparable. Yes he says Live is better, but not by much. And as mentioned elsewhere, anybody who gives the NXE more points for presentation than XMB is not fully utilising his hangover cures.
I don't mind your "find some reliable sources who have compared the two plan", but this is clearly NOT a reliable source.
Yes, i'm Dreamhunk and i'm suddenly a fan of consoles! Seriously Stealth, get a grip! As for the link, it was the first i found after a quick search that was relatively recent and from an unbiased source.
As you PS3 fans response to any reference i post just seems to be to hide behind a weak attack on the source i can only assume that any attempt to defend your argument with your own PSN praising sources has failed utterly.
and just to get you off the "OMG Stealth U R such N idiot" conversation topic.
There's one for you:
http://reelgamers.com/games/online.html
It's still not really a valid source, but i'd go so far as to say it's probably at least as valid as the ramblings of "phlash".
The dreamhunk question was a joke. Also, why don't you read my posts before flaming them up? You might notice that I haven't said that PSN is better than Live. In fact, all I've said is that Live is probably a bit better than PSN, but that personally I don't want to shell out money for it's a-bit-betterness.
And "weak attack on the source"? I really can't imagine that anybody other than you has ever cared about the opinion of "phlash"! He has 1 follower on his bizarre website, and you know as well as I do that it's not a valid source, so you might as well just admit it. For the last time, I am not a PS3 fanboy. I own all of the consoles except PSP, and have just been stating that I do not use Live. Predictably, as a result, i have not been looking for PSN-Live comparisons. I have no issue with your preference for Live, but I absolutely hold an issue with you attempting to present some random blog as a valid industry source.
Fair play Stealth, didn't mean to cause offense, i've already admitted not being exactly thorough with my web search. I've also never said PSN is bad in any way, to be honest i've only used it a few times so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment. The point of my post is that XBL is overall considered a better service by the media in general. Should it be free? Maybe, but 70p a week isn't going to break the bank and is probably worth it for the unified cross game system that Live presents.
Nolim's got a point.
There really aren't unbiased sites that claim that PSN is better in any way. Free can be argued, but reviewers aren't running a monetary scale. Their basis is solely on quality.
- It's more akin to the argument, Why would I pay for satellite when I can watch broadcast for free?"
People make fun of "Home", but Home is great! It's just new.
It's makes sense why Home is unpopular. Xbox people are polarized to hate anything Sony, & PS3 lovers, if honest, hate XBL; so a super-XBL wouldn't matter.
It should have a homepage that;s loaded separately from the word. You could leave comments, tag videos, check friends, browse movies, etc. There should be a button at the bottom that states, "Enter World", where the Game aspect of Home loads.
It could be the video-game version of a the ultimate social-networking site, & it's, obviously, designed to attract an entirely different market than the ones that sit on game-sites all day long.