XBL vs. PSN


#1

I already own a 360, and I’m relatively happy with how XBL is working.

I’m trying to get technical input, meaning I don’t want any “omg XBL you have to pay sucks” comments.

Just which one is better performance wise.

I’m thinking of getting a PS3, but I don’t know if I want to if the PSN is worse than XBL.


#2

XBL is heads and shoulders above PSN. I own both systems. The only thing I like about PSN besides being free is the fact that you could use a bluetooth headset for communication. ‘Home’ was supposed to be an answer to XBL but it’s crap imo. Live runs alot smoother PSN. But in the end it’s all a matter of preference, PSN is a good service for how much you pay.


#3

Prior to buying my Xbox360 I compared the two systems and decided to buy the Xbox360. In the end it came out to be cheaper than buying a PS3 and XBL is great! Even though PSN is free I heard from countless people that XBL is more stable than the PSN. I definitely am glad I made that decision.


#4

Thanks.

One more question I have:
Playing one on one, does the host run on his own bandwith? Or are there servers up and running by Sony?


#5

Aren’t vs. threads against the TOS?


#6

This just about covers it.

I too own both consoles and the PS3’s online infrastructure - whilst decent for free - is absolutely laughable in direct comparison to Live. There’s simply no contest.


#7

It’s more about what you don’t get with PSN than a real performance issue. Many games (i.e. fighters) use P2P networking, so the servers don’t always enter into in-game network performance, since you connect directly to the other players.

Microsoft provides (and charges both you and developers for) a larger set of services on their own servers. Matchmaking, scoreboards, achievements, etc. Much of development for these sorts of things on PS3 games is left up to the 3rd party company to provide for themselves, though some do it themselves anyway on XBL.


#8

Both great for online play and PSN probably is slightly better in that department as quite a lot of games provide free dedicated servers. (think it’s first party only, but that’s still a good few games)

However PSN lacks voice messaging, quick friends list navigation (in-game navigating your friends list can be awkward as it loads kinda slow at times), it also lacks player profiles and trophys are nowhere near as well implemented as achievements are.

As a complete package, PSN loses.

A lot of games have free servers, off the top of my head Resistance 2, Warhawk and Killzone 2 have masses of free dedicated servers (lag free of course)

Mostly though it’s like Xbox Live, peer2peer.

Live runs a lot smoother? Lol what a load of BS, PSN is stable as is XBL, if you get more lag on PSN than XBL then that will be because you’ve gotten unlucky and joined a bad host.


#9

^^^ Plenty of Live games use dedicated servers (All of the EA ones for one).

You shouldn’t try to give advice if you don’t know what you’re talking about.


#10

I second. You guys are portraying PSN a lot worse than it is. Is XBL better? Yes. Is it leaps and bounds better? No.


#11

I recently got a PS3 after having a 360 for 3 years. As soon as I jumped on I good notice this was not XBL. I have a harder time finding good connections on PSN. But, there are better players on PSN than XBL from what I’ve experienced. I don’t know exactly why we pay for XBL but I’m happy with it.


#12

Preference.

I like to turn on the xbox and be able to watch netflixs, chat with friends and I want to jump immediately into a game without having to go back to the dashboard and plus you have to admit it is quite revolutionary. I always look forward to the video coverage of gaming events that they make available to you. And the neat little things like the deals of the week thing.

But basically its all about preference.


#13

I think the odd $3 a month works out great from a purchasing comparison since it’s better, if you’re going to decide you can’t go wrong with Live imo.