Microsoft has responded to yesterday's news that previously Xbox-only US video streaming service, Netflix will be arriving on PS3 - and at no extra cost.
Unlike Xbox Live Gold subscribers, North American PS3 users won't have to pay any additional charge outside of the monthly Netflix subscriber fee of $8.99. Despite this, a MS spokesperson said Xbox Live Gold is still "a generation ahead of the competition".
"The Netflix experience on Xbox LIVE is unique and reflects our commitment for social entertainment. We believe we offer an experience today that is a generation ahead of what others are offering," the spokesperson said.
Xbox 360: Social networking
Official trailer
1:09Facebook, Twitter on 360
Xbox 360: Social networking
Official trailer
1:09Facebook, Twitter on 360
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
"For a little over $4 a month Xbox LIVE Gold membership is hands-down the best value in home entertainment, and gives you exclusive access multi-player gaming and early demos as well as Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm, "1 vs 100" and more."
Will Microsoft stand its ground, or will it eventually be forced to bring down the price of Xbox Live? One Report reckons it might put the price UP.
Shame about the Sky prices. At least it's free if you have multiroom or unlimited broadband, £10 if you don't have either but a Sky account. It escalates a lot if you're not a Sky subscriber, though.
I'm getting the impression that these prices are a lot higher thanks to Sky rather than Microsoft.
"For a little over $4 a month Xbox LIVE Gold membership is hands-down the best value in home entertainment, and gives you exclusive access multi-player gaming and early demos as well as Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm, "1 vs 100" and more."
I don't see how Microsoft can still make a claim that Live is a generation ahead of the competition. If there's any lag, it's only because both services aren't perfect but neither is better. The current stand out differences are cross game chat, social network sites and video downloads (2 of those soon to be matched by PSN).
For free PSN users can access BBC iPlayer, Home, Vidzone, Youtube, soon to be Netflix (free if you subscribe to Netflix) and an open online browser, massive multi-player gaming (Killzone, Resistance 2, MAG), demos (some earlier than others), easy access to US and Asian accounts.
Microsoft have lead this generation (and last) online but they need to get their heads out of the sand and drop Lives subscription fee or at least lower it, especially since PS3 is now at a more competitive price. If they don't, they'll find themselves slipping out of their position, if that happens on their home turf USA, they won't get back, however I fear if Halo Reach is a blockbusting smash then Microsoft will hike Live up and continue with fallacious claims of Live being a generation ahead.
(snip) For free PSN users can access BBC iPlayer, Home, Vidzone, Youtube, soon to be Netflix (free if you subscribe to Netflix) and an open online browser, massive multi-player gaming (Killzone, Resistance 2, MAG), demos (some earlier than others), easy access to US and Asian accounts.
Microsoft have lead this generation (and last) online but they need to get their heads out of the sand and drop Lives subscription fee ...(snip)
I have a pc should I wish to watch Youtube or the other online services, so the fact that the Xbox can't do that does not bother me at all.
Also, if you wish to save money right now on the Xbox Live subscription, just shop online. I saved about a third off the standard price with a few minutes work.
How can paying $4 a month be the best value entertainment package when there are 2 other free one's available?
Let's all be honest here and realise that Sony are really putting the pressure on MS at the moment. It can only mean good things for everybody concerned.
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
Let's all be honest here and realise that Sony are really putting the pressure on MS at the moment. It can only mean good things for everybody concerned.
Exactly. Competition is very important for us gamers so as that one company does not rule the lot and then can charge whatever they choose.
This is one thing which worries me about Games on demand/PSN etc. If there is no competition online, how are we the consumer going to get the best price? The PSPgo, for example, can only receive new games via download. Where is the competition there?
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
You certainly like to be ripped off.
Care to expand on that statement? Or are you going the stealth route today?
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
There isn't as much in it as you obviously think, Stonecold. In fact, I find the recent PSN additions to be much more enjoyable than the 360 ones, including the new SKY player.
LIVE's saving grace is the cross-game chat function. And we are not talking the difference between terrestrial TV and SKY, to be frank.
You can make your own mind up when you eventually get a PS3, but I'm sure you'll agree, especially as the cross game chat will most likely be a PSN function too.
Online overall will have to be factored into my decision whether to get a PS3 or an XBox. I am still undecided. By Christmas time, I hope to have an idea of which system I will be picking up for myself. I guess I am looking for the console which is the closest to a PC in a box.
(snip) For free PSN users can access BBC iPlayer, Home, Vidzone, Youtube, soon to be Netflix (free if you subscribe to Netflix) and an open online browser, massive multi-player gaming (Killzone, Resistance 2, MAG), demos (some earlier than others), easy access to US and Asian accounts.
Microsoft have lead this generation (and last) online but they need to get their heads out of the sand and drop Lives subscription fee ...(snip)
I have a pc should I wish to watch Youtube or the other online services, so the fact that the Xbox can't do that does not bother me at all.
Also, if you wish to save money right now on the Xbox Live subscription, just shop online. I saved about a third off the standard price with a few minutes work.
A PC can also access the same social networking sites Live can but as this isn't really material suited to the TV, Ill stick to my PC monitor for it.
The difference being with PSN, I can watch Youtube and BBC iPlayer on my 50 inch tellie and my 7.1 surround system. In fact I've never had the PS3 connected to a monitor (this is especially handy for keeping the kids quiet when playing in the night garden as a monitor wouldnt attract the same attention). There's also some good sites which stream movies and the PS3 can access and play them without a hitch, nice for the quieter nights in.
I think I'm just trying to stress that in many areas, PSN excels Live and with video rentals, cross game chat and social network sites being the only real differences between PSN and Live, I say Microsoft have their heads in the sand when they quote Live is a generation ahead than the competition as justification for the subscription fee, and with Sky adding an extra £15 a month on top of it, its hardly something to praise and defend.
I feel both PSN and Live services are very similar and both excellent, (Im not knocking what they provide) but I also feel the Live fee can't be justified since the competitor, which offers additional features and lacks a smaller degree of components, is free.
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
There isn't as much in it as you obviously think, Stonecold. In fact, I find the recent PSN additions to be much more enjoyable than the 360 ones, including the new SKY player.
LIVE's saving grace is the cross-game chat function. And we are not talking the difference between terrestrial TV and SKY, to be frank.
You can make your own mind up when you eventually get a PS3, but I'm sure you'll agree, especially as the cross game chat will most likely be a PSN function too.
Only being able to play the PS3 at a friends means that I probably dont have experience of using it day in day out like yourself and I probably havent seen all of its functions and capabilities.
I just prefer Live and in this consumerism age if that means it costs me £30 a year, so be it.
You are right though in that competition can only be a good thing, especially for us Gamers.
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
There isn't as much in it as you obviously think, Stonecold. In fact, I find the recent PSN additions to be much more enjoyable than the 360 ones, including the new SKY player.
LIVE's saving grace is the cross-game chat function. And we are not talking the difference between terrestrial TV and SKY, to be frank.
You can make your own mind up when you eventually get a PS3, but I'm sure you'll agree, especially as the cross game chat will most likely be a PSN function too.
Only being able to play the PS3 at a friends means that I probably dont have experience of using it day in day out like yourself and I probably havent seen all of its functions and capabilities.
I just prefer Live and in this consumerism age if that means it costs me £30 a year, so be it.
You are right though in that competition can only be a good thing, especially for us Gamers.
£30 a year is nothing - I pay it myself. However, my point is that I tend to use more PSN functions than LIVE, which frustrates me a little bit, obviously.
(snip) For free PSN users can access BBC iPlayer, Home, Vidzone, Youtube, soon to be Netflix (free if you subscribe to Netflix) and an open online browser, massive multi-player gaming (Killzone, Resistance 2, MAG), demos (some earlier than others), easy access to US and Asian accounts.
Microsoft have lead this generation (and last) online but they need to get their heads out of the sand and drop Lives subscription fee ...(snip)
I have a pc should I wish to watch Youtube or the other online services, so the fact that the Xbox can't do that does not bother me at all.
Also, if you wish to save money right now on the Xbox Live subscription, just shop online. I saved about a third off the standard price with a few minutes work.
A PC can also access the same social networking sites Live can but as this isn't really material suited to the TV, Ill stick to my PC monitor for it.
The difference being with PSN, I can watch Youtube and BBC iPlayer on my 50 inch tellie and my 7.1 surround system. In fact I've never had the PS3 connected to a monitor (this is especially handy for keeping the kids quiet when playing in the night garden as a monitor wouldnt attract the same attention). There's also some good sites which stream movies and the PS3 can access and play them without a hitch, nice for the quieter nights in.
I think I'm just trying to stress that in many areas, PSN excels Live and with video rentals, cross game chat and social network sites being the only real differences between PSN and Live, I say Microsoft have their heads in the sand when they quote Live is a generation ahead than the competition as justification for the subscription fee, and with Sky adding an extra £15 a month on top of it, its hardly something to praise and defend.
I feel both PSN and Live services are very similar and both excellent, (Im not knocking what they provide) but I also feel the Live fee can't be justified since the competitor, which offers additional features and lacks a smaller degree of components, is free.
Good Lord, a reasoned argument on the Internet. Well, I never.
I suppose Microsoft will continue to charge whatever the market will bear. I felt that 28GBP for a year's online gaming was reasonable value for money, so that's why I paid for it. Certainly not for early access to demos or other nonsense of that sort.
To a degree yes I am admitting it I paid for live full stop hence why I was a mug. But they took the last 3 months with out my confirmation. I didnt shop around for cheaper prices I just used the deal that MS offered on the console.
Until we get faster, much faster internet speeds nothing is going to move the real next generation and both SONY and MS know this. However, MS does have more of the features that we expect when that does arrive like downloadable retail games and movies, which while 1080p aren't comaparable to Blu-Ray yet! However, the XBox 360 has the hardware set-up least able to take most advantage. Mainly because a large number of the user base doesn't have large amounts of local storage (Arcade machines and 20Gb owners). The closed network also means that new web technologies that become available in the future have to work in partnership with MS to be usable on the console.
Facebook and Twitter are nice additions but both have been long available on the Wii and PS3 with open browsers. However, adding access to the sites isn't the way that I see these technologies really being useful in a games consoles. The way that Twitter has been integrated into both Burnout Paradise (PS3 version at least which has Criterion Games Twitter thread on the news page) and Uncharted 2 (which allows you to link your twitter account and tweets whne you reach milestones in the game or go online) seems a more appropriate use of the technology.
To a degree yes I am admitting it I paid for live full stop hence why I was a mug. But they took the last 3 months with out my confirmation. I didnt shop around for cheaper prices I just used the deal that MS offered on the console.
You should read the small print on what you're signing up for then!
I think MS can keep charging what they are charging as long as the games remain good. I don't think they can raise it and expect people to hang around. A price drop or free would be nice but I think it makes them too much money to do that. In the end it is still about gaming for most people who own a console. If these companies keep pushing the entertainment hub aspect then people who buy it for that alone (who would?) probably will pass on the LIVE fee.
I think MS can keep charging what they are charging as long as the games remain good. I don't think they can raise it and expect people to hang around. A price drop or free would be nice but I think it makes them too much money to do that. In the end it is still about gaming for most people who own a console. If these companies keep pushing the entertainment hub aspect then people who buy it for that alone (who would?) probably will pass on the LIVE fee.
Can't PS3 owners access last.fm, Facebook and Twitter through the web browser, though? When that movie service becomes available, PSN will really be on par with XBL. The only difference will be that one will have bigger multiplayer games and one will have cross game voice chat. In fact I would argue that PSN has surpassed it at this moment in time because of the massive multiplayer games which I have yet to see on the 360.
When I traded in my 360 last year for a PS3 I didn't see much difference when going online anyway, to be honest.
I still haven't seen a any reasonable argument to justify the subscription fee other than "its better".
Im getting COD MW 2 on PS3 and so is a friend of mine on Xbox 360. His subscription is due next week so he is going to have to buy the game and renew his subscription to play the blasted thing online.
Thats nearly twice as much as I'm paying, I don't see the justifcation. Sure Live has cross game chat and video rentals but PSN is getting these 2 features soon, can offer the exact same multiplayer online options, has an open browser to view the internet as a bonus, offers vidzone in which you can streams 10s of 1000s of music videos and Home (not necessary but available if you like) all at no extra cost.
Can anyone justify Lives subscription when the competition is so advanced?
I still haven't seen a any reasonable argument to justify the subscription fee other than "its better".
Im getting COD MW 2 on PS3 and so is a friend of mine on Xbox 360. His subscription is due next week so he is going to have to buy the game and renew his subscription to play the blasted thing online.
Thats nearly twice as much as I'm paying, I don't see the justifcation. Sure Live has cross game chat and video rentals but PSN is getting these 2 features soon, can offer the exact same multiplayer online options, has an open browser to view the internet as a bonus, offers vidzone in which you can streams 10s of 1000s of music videos and Home (not necessary but available if you like) all at no extra cost.
Can anyone justify Lives subscription when the competition is so advanced?
I still haven't seen any reason as to why you care, or indeed that anyone should care why you care so much?
I still haven't seen a any reasonable argument to justify the subscription fee other than "its better".
Im getting COD MW 2 on PS3 and so is a friend of mine on Xbox 360. His subscription is due next week so he is going to have to buy the game and renew his subscription to play the blasted thing online.
Thats nearly twice as much as I'm paying, I don't see the justifcation. Sure Live has cross game chat and video rentals but PSN is getting these 2 features soon, can offer the exact same multiplayer online options, has an open browser to view the internet as a bonus, offers vidzone in which you can streams 10s of 1000s of music videos and Home (not necessary but available if you like) all at no extra cost.
Am I alone in being more or less indifferent to all these social functions on a console? Sure, I think it's novel that the consumer has more choice if he/she should decide they want to view the BBC player right then and there, or stop by Facebook, etc. yet personally I couldn't care less. I bought an Xbox 360 to play various Xbox 360 games - some of them multi-platform, some of them not. For the online social aspect I happily stick with my much faster PC which has the added bonus of having many more features and a far more convenient layout for communication (i.e. a keyboard).
While I conceed that sometimes you do indeed get what you pay for, I have never been thrilled at the thought of having to pay for a subscription on top of paying for the internet connection in regards to LIVE Gold accounts, hence the reason I refuse to do so. When I want online gaming I turn to the PC. Still, as previously mentioned, I'm all for more customer choice but that doesn't automatically equate with me jumping on the proverbial bandwagon.
Mildly put, I think it would be unwise for MS to increase the subscription fees for LIVE.
I wouldn't have any issues with paying a subscription cost if I felt the service was actually justified. But it isn't and don't play the cross game chat card because thats not a live/psn feature, its a console feature hence why it will be on the ps3 via firmware update in the next month or two. Having said that its not all its cracked up to be anyway. Vidzone and bbc iplayer offer more for me than live does. Not a fanboy. peace out
Xbox live should be free in terms of playing online with your friends, downloading demos and internet browsing. You should only have to pay for arcade games, gamerpics/themes and xbox originals.
I suppose if you don't own a PS3, then it would be better to get the PC version of COD MW2 for free online play.
I've a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse for my PS3, and I'd rather play it on me tellie, over a monitor, through my hi-fi set up, so the PS3 version is a better vote for me.
I still don't see any reason to pay the Live subscription though.
I think from a standing point, to buy a PS3 and C.O.D MW 2 makes more sense price wise. Sure the console is £50 dearer than the Elite but if you add the price of Live's subscription fee then it closes the gap. For the remaining difference on PS3, you get wi-fi out of the box, a fantastic Blu-Ray player with Tru DTS output, Bluetooth compatibility and you won't have to renew the fee in another year's time when the next C.O.D is out.
I suppose if you don't own a PS3, then it would be better to get the PC version of COD MW2 for free online play.
I've a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse for my PS3, and I'd rather play it on me tellie, over a monitor, through my hi-fi set up, so the PS3 version is a better vote for me.
I still don't see any reason to pay the Live subscription though.
I think from a standing point, to buy a PS3 and C.O.D MW 2 makes more sense price wise. Sure the console is £50 dearer than the Elite but if you add the price of Live's subscription fee then it closes the gap. For the remaining difference on PS3, you get wi-fi out of the box, a fantastic Blu-Ray player with Tru DTS output, Bluetooth compatibility and you won't have to renew the fee in another year's time when the next C.O.D is out.
You could just connect your PC to the TV system for the same effect. Granted, if you already have a PS3 connected to the TV then that'll involve less redunancy work.
Xbox live should be free in terms of playing online with your friends, downloading demos and internet browsing. You should only have to pay for arcade games, gamerpics/themes and xbox originals.
Of course MS have to fight back, they have just lost a pretty big USP in the United States.
And Mark its like saying to someone you pay £10 per month for your TV license but the best entertainment out there is Sky and it costs £££'s per month.
You do get what you pay for and personally I prefer Live, MS have been doing this side of the business a bit longer than Sony, although they are certainly catching up.
There isn't as much in it as you obviously think, Stonecold. In fact, I find the recent PSN additions to be much more enjoyable than the 360 ones, including the new SKY player.
LIVE's saving grace is the cross-game chat function. And we are not talking the difference between terrestrial TV and SKY, to be frank.
You can make your own mind up when you eventually get a PS3, but I'm sure you'll agree, especially as the cross game chat will most likely be a PSN function too.
people keep mentioning the cross game chat, can someone clarify if this will in fact enable numerous people to chat in a private party or is it just limited to one on one chat???
Better late than never, what M$ don't seem to realise is that it's all good and well trying to be first all the time... but sometimes it is better to wait, and then make better of what someone else produces.
The PS3 might be trailing in some parts but excelling in others.
PSN is total $hit,impossible to find anything unless you know the exact demo thats been recently released or you fancy spending and hour siphoning through the 99% paid for crap and stupid new clothes for a game character for $$$
Also, it prevents you going into PSN several times if theres a firmware update that you havnt taken because it keeps loosing connection and restarting the download because the PS3 wifi is junk.
I'm sorry, I just don't get all this 'PSN is catching up, MS must be quaking in their boots' crap.
Firstly, PSN is not catching up. I wish it was, but every time I turn my PS3 on a wave of mild disappointment washes over me. Seriously, the way the Sony fanboys go on it's like every day Sony makes some amazing new edition that makes Live look paltry in comparison. It doesn't. BBC iPlayer is a nice touch, but all those frothing at the mouth at Sony's apparent resurgence, I suggest taking a breath of fresh air. PSN is still a poor second in terms of service, and before anyone starts going on about the price... Look, if I'm hungry, I could buy a beef burger, or a steak. One costs more than the other, but I for one am happy to pay for quality.
Secondly, if you own an Xbox and pay for Live, what are the chances, even if Sony's service becomes top drawer, that you would buy a whole new console as a result? Slim to none. Those on Xbox have the games they play, their friends online, nobody is going to switch consoles just because one stepped up it's service. It's a game of catch up at the moment anyway.
PS3 owners deserve a better service and will eventually get one. Xbox owners who pay for Live are happy with their service. It's a personal choice, right? I prefer Xbox, though I would like Sony to catch up because I feel short changed by my PS3.
I'm still struggling to see why you feel PSN is way behind Xbox Live. The disappointment you mentions makes no sense, is it the style and layout of PSN (which I agree isn't up to Lives standards)?
BBC iPlayer is a fantastic edition in its own right with comedies like Fligh of the Concords and documentaries like Life available etc etc and its all at no extra cost.
Your point about beef burgers or steak didnt exactly match up to any PSN/Live comparisions what so ever. Why do you think PSN is lesser to such an extent? I think PSN is like a steak with BBC iPlayer, Vidzone, Home, massive multiplayer online games (Killzone 2, Resistance 2, MAG etc) at no cost, its like a free steak! While others are forced to pay £30 for a large beef burger.
At a competitive price, users on Xbox 360 would probably opt for playing PS3 for the exclusive titles such as MGS4, Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 come Christmas and also to experience the freebies of BBC iPlayer, Vidzone, Home (if you prefer that), an open online browser to access Youtube and other vid sites through their tellie and last but not least its online compatible games all for free.
I can't say the same for PS3 users who want an Xbox 360 and pay for its subscription fee come Christmas.
PS3 owners have a superb service that not only matches Live but in many ways, but exceeds it in other ways.
1. Get your head back up here and stop kissing your own bottom Microsoft, it doesn't come across as impressive when you hand out statements like this, it comes across as big headed and f**king deluded.
2. I think I'll stick with my FREE online gameplay with BLURAY capabilities, alongside my AWESOME selection of games. Sony are destroying you guys worldwide now.
3. f**k you for charging gamers for online! I'm not a 360 fan, and I'll be damned if I've met a 360 fanboy that I've liked, but that doesn't mean I think it's fair for them to be ripped off! Seriously, PC gaming and PS3 gaming has free online, sort it out!
The layout for one, yes. The interface for PS3 I find jarring.
I have had more connection issues with PSN than with Live.
The communicative features for friends on Live totally kills PSN.
Xbox updates are done in a matter of seconds. I have to wait an hour for my PS3 to download an update, then another 20 minutes for it to install. WTF.
Of course the steak and hamburger point holds up. Steak is more expensive, but better. Call it 'you get what you pay for' in other words. PSN is free, big bonus, but Live is better for a small charge. I know what I would rather have.
Dude you listed Home as a plus point. Fail
Killzone and Resistance, if you want to compare online games, are not in the same league as Halo, Gears etc. Please bear in mind this is my personal opinion. I didn't like Killzone at all, or Resistance much, so comparing exclusive games isn't perhaps the best option. Having played CoD4 on both systems, I preferred the experience on Xbox.
Lastly, as an owner of both consoles, 9 times out of 10 I opt for playing my Xbox. I'm still looking forward to getting my hands on Uncharted 2, but currently Forza is keeping me occupied, as well as ODST and FIFA.
My overarching point Starsail was that regardless of changes to PSN, I doubt any Xbox owners would defect to PS3. For all the people who pay for Live, I don't hear anyone complaining about it, because the service is fantastic. But you are happy with PSN, so good on you buddy.
I know loads of people who have defected to PS3 - myself included!
It is often the result of repeated hardware failure and poor service from MS.
In my own personal instance I had utilised the extended warranty after getting the RROD and was sent a dodgy refurb which wouldn’t play half my games – including Gears.
When I called up to inform MS, they told me that they couldn’t replace it as the problem wasn’t RROD-related and the extended warranty only covers the aforementioned issue. They then said it would be £140 to get it fixed which was the point where I decided to get a PS3 – knowing that the £140 might only have given me a few months more gaming before being in the exact same situation with no warranty...
I was so annoyed that they tried to basically justify sending me a duff refurb! Surely having agreed to replace my RROD console they should’ve been obliged to send me a replacement that actually works...?
The layout for one, yes. The interface for PS3 I find jarring.
I have had more connection issues with PSN than with Live.
The communicative features for friends on Live totally kills PSN.
Xbox updates are done in a matter of seconds. I have to wait an hour for my PS3 to download an update, then another 20 minutes for it to install. WTF.
Of course the steak and hamburger point holds up. Steak is more expensive, but better. Call it 'you get what you pay for' in other words. PSN is free, big bonus, but Live is better for a small charge. I know what I would rather have.
Dude you listed Home as a plus point. Fail
Killzone and Resistance, if you want to compare online games, are not in the same league as Halo, Gears etc. Please bear in mind this is my personal opinion. I didn't like Killzone at all, or Resistance much, so comparing exclusive games isn't perhaps the best option. Having played CoD4 on both systems, I preferred the experience on Xbox.
Lastly, as an owner of both consoles, 9 times out of 10 I opt for playing my Xbox. I'm still looking forward to getting my hands on Uncharted 2, but currently Forza is keeping me occupied, as well as ODST and FIFA.
My overarching point Starsail was that regardless of changes to PSN, I doubt any Xbox owners would defect to PS3. For all the people who pay for Live, I don't hear anyone complaining about it, because the service is fantastic. But you are happy with PSN, so good on you buddy.
saved me a lot of typing there ive got both as well and agree..... live is just better, more polished, more reliable etc...
Usually I throw in a bit of fire to heat things up, and stir it a little lol but Im being serious on this point.
I owned an Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii and PS3 and now all I have is the PS3. I call myself a Sony fanboy because I like to defend accusations against PS3 which I think are pointless given the joy it has brought me over the other 2 machines (I'd like others to experience the same but maybe its only my opinion).
I really couldn't tell any difference between playing COD MW on Live than PSN (other than a few teething issues on PSN at the start). The voice chat on Live is slightly better quality but any lag problems I experienced on PSN were no worse than those I experienced on Live. On a technical scale, I was blew away with the first Resistance title running lag free online due to the number of players in one game and from a service supposedly inferior to Live (yes, I questioned Live on release and experience of PSN!! lol).
When I listed Home I also put "if you prefer" in brackets beside it.
Killzone 2 is a much better game than Halo 3 (don't even get me started on ODST lol) both online and offline. The customisation is up there with COD and it adds the extra ability to mix and match your stats to evolve your combat style. The Uncharted series is currently going toe to toe with Gears and in my opinion, is a better game (well Uncharted 2 anyway) but PS3 also have Metal Gear Solid 4 as a AAA third person shooter anyway.
I do hear a lot of complaining with paying the fee, KDF (or something lol) who has also exchanged heat with me over Xbox, has admitted not paying the fee and prefers free online gaming on the PC. Complaints about Live are few but the subscription is blasted daily by loyal fans of the platform.
Hey, it's all good man. In fact I would like to say that you clearly prefer your PS3 for this reason and that, just like I prefer my Xbox for this and that, and it is refreshing to have points for both sides put over and considered by opposing camps and responded to without venom. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside
The games again are a personal choice, I can see why people like Killzone, it just isn't my cup of tea and I find Halo much more fun.
In some ways I am willing Sony to do something that makes me sit up and take notice. At the moment I just prefer Live, and bar the exclusives on PS3 (the Last Guardian is by far my most wanted game at the moment, along with Red Dead Redemption) I doubt that will change for the foreseeable future.
In closing, there is another reason why Xbox gets my vote, and that's because I have a large number of friends with the console as well. I only have two mates with PS3's, one feels the same as I do about it, one loves his and like a guy above bought it after he got the Xbox RROD. I play a lot online with mates, FIFA, Forza, Halo, CoD etc, so for me it's a no brainer. I'm sure others have it the other way around though.
It's all down to personal taste at the end of the day.
I have to admit, I still go back to Halo 1 for a co-op blast on legendary in the control room level. Its one of my favorite games (Killzone 2 not even in my top ten lol).
Maybe Santa will bring you a PS3 for christmas lol. The Xbox 360 exclusive that would probably draw me back would be Alan Wake, it looks fantastic and with its shooting/exploring mechanics, should be much better than Heavy Rain.
For PS3 online gaming, a headset is definatley a must, the community is much bigger now and there's plenty of friends available, I've loads in Home (about the only usual thing its for right now lol).
It probably is a taste thing but I think Sony offers strong enough competition now and Microsoft should take notice otherwise they'll lose their grip on the "mainstream online console gaming market" that they've pioneered.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
