First of all, I've been accused of being a troll before and I intend to fully dispell that rep. This is a legitimate question looking for a legitimate response.

I keep hearing about how the XBL service is "better" than the PSN. What exactly are the differences? I've not experienced much play on PSN(seeing as I don't have a PS3 yet), but it all looks like the same lobby experience, same connection speeds, they both have friends lists, but I have noticed that PSN does have less people with headsets.

What are the major differences and benefits of XBL to warrant the $50/yr price tag?

Again, I'm not looking for a war here, I just want to know why XBL is generally considered superior at the current time.

First of all, I've been accused of being a troll before and I intend to fully dispell that rep. This is a legitimate question looking for a legitimate response.

I keep hearing about how the XBL service is "better" than the PSN. What exactly are the differences? I've not experienced much play on PSN(seeing as I don't have a PS3 yet), but it all looks like the same lobby experience, same connection speeds, they both have friends lists, but I have noticed that PSN does have less people with headsets.

What are the major differences and benefits of XBL to warrant the $50/yr price tag?

Again, I'm not looking for a war here, I just want to know why XBL is generally considered superior at the current time.

Easier to use and more tightly integrated. Unified friends list, private conversations, etc.

My list:

Integrated Friends List/Invites

As far as online play goes, this is key. I can invite a friend into any game I'm playing, which they can join from any game they're playing. So, if they're in Halo and I'm in Uno, I only have to pull up the guide to invite them to my Uno game. They hit Accept, and they're in my Uno game. This makes playing with friends incredibly easy.

Chat

Voice/Text chat is also supported, and not game-specific. So, you can talk to someone in the same game or a different game, without having to leave or alter your experience at all.

Structure

XBL is very structured. There is probably 50x (or more) content on XBL than on PSN, but I can get to any of those pieces faster than I can get to any on PSN (unless they're on the front page). The Playstation Store is just horribly designed, and difficult to use. For me, purchases are slower, browsing is slower, and most things are blind. XBL has requirements in place (such as demos for every single Arcade game or video purchase) that make the experience better and more reliable for the consumer. I don't really have to worry about accidentally buying a horrible game due to lack of a demo.

Content

On the same token, the content is incredibly extensive. There are more demos released on XBL in a given week than on PSN in a month. This is ongoing... the more months this goes on, the further ahead XBL gets. Also, there are usually 2 (but sometimes just 1) Arcade games, every single week. I've made 3 purchases on PSN so far, and about 60 on XBLA. Games are games, I don't care much about the platform. But, XBLA does it so much better. Even multi-platform games (such as Puzzle Fighter) are better on XBLA, due to the above accesibility options, graphic scaling (never stuck in 480p), achievements, etc.

Also, the Video Marketplace is pretty incredible, if you're into that. Game videos are released on a daily basis, and addons are frequent. I'm a fan of additional content (as long as it's worthwhile), so that's a plus for me.

Peer-to-Peer Servers
I know many count this as a weakness, but I don't. I don't have lag problems (generally). There is one huge disadvantage with dedicated servers: one day, they get shut down. MGS3:S, the most recent MGS game, had a fun multiplayer mode. However, the servers were shut down. I can't play it anymore, no matter how much I want to. With a Peer-to-Peer system, you don't have that concern. I can go back and play Rainbow Six 3 if I want, despite there being about 6 games released in the series since then. I don't like having to worry about online functionality suddenly disappearing for a game. (see also: EA Servers)

What PSN offers just feels weak and useless, and I've got it sitting right there for free. If it were superior in any way, I'd use it. I paid for the system, after all... but, it offers literally nothing in the way of advantages.

The friends list is the same for all games. No matter what you are doing on the XBox, when a friend signs on, you will get a small message that pops up and tells you. When you get an invite to play a game, you get a message that pops up and tells you. If you hit the guide button while the message is up, you get taken to a blade that lets you accept the invite (invites show up in your message list, which is available at any time by pressing the guide button).

If you are in a different game when you accept the invite, the 360 will ask you if you want to quit your current game. If you say yes, it will either prompt you to insert the game disc or it will launch the game (if it is an arcade game or downloadable game). Once the game disc is inserted, you will be taken directly to your friend's game. This all works very well.

The PS3, however, has no cross game invites or messaging. Each game uses its own code (instead of the OS) to keep track of invites, etc... So there is no way to invite a friend into your Warhawk game if that person is playing Ratchet and Clank.

The 360 has matchmaking based on the skill of the user. So the hope is that you will always get matched with a fair fight. It doesn't always happen, of course. :) But more often than not, the Halo 3 games I play are very close matches. COD 4 on the 360 will use this system, but I've seen interviews that have stated that the PS3 will not match players based on skill.

Live has an extensive web site with a web page for each user. You can access and edit your friends list through this web site. You can see what all of your friends are playing (even what MAP!) in a single page. And you can message them through the web site. Works great for seeing if your friends are online and playing games before you even turn on the console!

There are a bunch more features, but this is going to get long if I list them all. :)

First of all, I've been accused of being a troll before and I intend to fully dispell that rep. This is a legitimate question looking for a legitimate response.

I keep hearing about how the XBL service is "better" than the PSN. What exactly are the differences? I've not experienced much play on PSN(seeing as I don't have a PS3 yet), but it all looks like the same lobby experience, same connection speeds, they both have friends lists, but I have noticed that PSN does have less people with headsets.

What are the major differences and benefits of XBL to warrant the $50/yr price tag?

Again, I'm not looking for a war here, I just want to know why XBL is generally considered superior at the current time.

Get a 360, sign up for LIVE and you'll see why my PS3 gathers dust while my 360 gets used almost every day. I believe my 14 cents a day is well spent on LIVE. :) The PS network should have a second tier option for people who want better features, maybe they wouldn't be loosing their butts in the gaming division.

In addition to all of the answers above, see also the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live

Yeah... the real difference is the cross game chat and messaging support. The PS3 does not currently support this type of universal access to the community like Live does. But that's pretty big because it makes it quicker to talk to and jump back and forth into games with your friends.
On the PSN you get a universal ID... All games use that just like Live. One thing I haven't seen on Live is something that a few games on the PS3 allow... That is a GAME-SPECIFIC buddy list... This is great for players that you might only play one game with and don't want to use up your limited sized friends list on the PS3 (the limit on the PSN now is 50 friends)... Live has a limit as well.
PSN lets send text messages (with graphic smilies or attach pictures) to anyone... but voice messages are not available on the PSN like they are on Live.
PSN lets you have voice chats (but not from one game to another game like you can on Live)... But you can have 6 way voice and video GROUP chats on the PSN... (ie. get everyone in one 6-way voice chat... and see them too if they have cameras)
You can report people (always from the XMB)... game to game may or may not have an in-game report feature. In Live you can always get to your dashboard so you can get to that report function.
You can mute people in games on both systems
And there seem to be more frequent software and feature updates (http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Network/Updates) on the PSN service... About once a month (http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Network/Updates/history.html) actually.And there are things that the PSN has that Live does not offer... The best example is that you have a web browser built into the PS3. Not only can you easily access the internet from your couch if you want, but many games use the browser to publish their online manuals that they can update, or can link you to a site from within the game that might be connected... Like in the folding@home (http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html) application on the PS3 you can navigate Stanfords website and see all the stats and info about the project.

Oh... and a big one... Live has an Achievements system and a way for you to compare your gaming achievements with other friends... Kind-of an Arcade High Score board all your own... A very nice addition to the the Live service... Again, on the PSN... you'll likely have to wait for your Home and the "trophies" program for something similar... Yup, a bit more waiting.

Live is definitely more functional right now because of the universal access you have to your dashboard. Since the PS3 makes developers code that access into their games, it is not a standard feature for every game... and that's a problem. Supposedly that type of access is coming... But like many things one the PS3 that came a year later... you'll have to just wait. :(

Actually I just posted a rant about this over in the PlayStation AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12070885#post12070885). :)

Get a 360, sign up for LIVE and you'll see why my PS3 gathers dust while my 360 gets used almost every day. I believe my 14 cents a day is well spent on LIVE. :) The PS network should have a second tier option for people who want better features, maybe they wouldn't be loosing their butts in the gaming division.

I don't understand comments like this... Why do people look at their consoles like a sports team they need to root for? The only reason your PS3 would be gathering dust is because you are playing exclusive games on your 360 that you love and can't play on the PS3... And there aren't any games on the PS3 that call out to you.

I have more active friends on the PS3 so it is actually my 360 that I hardly ever play... (Not a Halo guy... Bioshock was fun!) I like the PSN download games better. I play with my friends on GRAW2 and Warhawk... I like the PS3 exclusives

I don't think the PSN should start charging... The service hasn't been evolving for as long as Live has (which started on the original Xbox).

And the Xbox division has lost much more money then the PS3 has, or will. MS reported a loss of 1.2 billion in just one quarter. They just had their first profitable quarter... but they got LOTS to make up.

I don't know why people are so giddy about Live... It is great, and it works well... but with a single software update giving you access to your buddy row on the XMB for the PS3, the features gap is pretty much completely closed... So what then? I guess there's always something to bash. :rolleyes:

I don't understand comments like this... Why do people look at their consoles like a sports team they need to root for? The only reason your PS3 would be gathering dust is because you are playing exclusive games on your 360 that you love and can't play on the PS3... And there aren't any games on the PS3 that call out to you.

I have more active friends on the PS3 so it is actually my 360 that I hardly ever play... (Not a Halo guy... Bioshock was fun!) I like the PSN download games better. I play with my friends on GRAW2 and Warhawk... I like the PS3 exclusives

I don't think the PSN should start charging... The service hasn't been evolving for as long as Live has (which started on the original Xbox).

And the Xbox division has lost much more money then the PS3 has, or will. MS reported a loss of 1.2 billion in just one quarter. They just had their first profitable quarter... but they got LOTS to make up.

I don't know why people are so giddy about Live... It is great, and it works well... but with a single software update giving you access to your buddy row on the XMB for the PS3, the features gap is pretty much completely closed... So what then? I guess there's always something to bash. :rolleyes:
Sony is losing 300 to 500 per console sold and just lowered the price again (new system missing some features of the original). Xbox live has always been a money maker for Microsoft, hardware wise the loss is due to them biting the bullet on the RROD. It comes down to preference, I chose the 360 and live. To each his own (COD4 comes out 11/5/07) enjoy your system of choice.

"And the Xbox division has lost much more money then the PS3 has, or will. MS reported a loss of 1.2 billion in just one quarter. They just had their first profitable quarter... but they got LOTS to make up."

In what way does this have any effect on how much enjoyment the users get out of Live? Microsoft has only ever been profitable on two things. Windows and Office. Their loss of money on any other endevor should come as no surprise whatsoever.

I don't know why people are so giddy about Live... It is great, and it works well...

I rest my case. ;)

OK, I think I understand. I have a 360, but I'm not a big live player due to the fact that there aren't that many games that I enjoy the multiplayer on. I'm a campaign kinda guy.

So it seems like the main thing is that the friends list is based more in the OS than in the games? I remember seeing my friend sign into PSN on his PS3 and it told him who was online. So does that mean those are his "OS friends"? And he can't start a game and then invite them? He has to set something up with his friends before he starts a game?

I don't understand comments like this... Why do people look at their consoles like a sports team they need to root for? The only reason your PS3 would be gathering dust is because you are playing exclusive games on your 360 that you love and can't play on the PS3... And there aren't any games on the PS3 that call out to you.

I have more active friends on the PS3 so it is actually my 360 that I hardly ever play... (Not a Halo guy... Bioshock was fun!) I like the PSN download games better. I play with my friends on GRAW2 and Warhawk... I like the PS3 exclusives

I don't think the PSN should start charging... The service hasn't been evolving for as long as Live has (which started on the original Xbox).

And the Xbox division has lost much more money then the PS3 has, or will. MS reported a loss of 1.2 billion in just one quarter. They just had their first profitable quarter... but they got LOTS to make up.

I don't know why people are so giddy about Live... It is great, and it works well... but with a single software update giving you access to your buddy row on the XMB for the PS3, the features gap is pretty much completely closed... So what then? I guess there's always something to bash. :rolleyes:
Didn't this comment start out questioning (bashing) person on how much of a fanboy he was being? If so then maybe you should look in a mirror. Sounds like your a PS fanboy to me. And if that's the case then why are you in the Xbox forum. You gave multiple reasons why your Xbox gathers dust and you use the PS3 every day. Then why post here? Is it to look as though you are unbiased with the beginning of this comment? Then to finish with, basically, "Xbox sucks Yeaaaa PS3" I don't get this. You are far from the first or most glaring of this behavior but I just wonder what the point is. Why didn't you just end it after the first paragraph. OK you stated your point and didn't go into any of your own biases. That would have been fine. Does the person yuo quoted bother you b/c they like the Xbox? Even if they are a fanboy about it why would you go into your own fanboyishness {word? maybe :) } especially if your trying to appear to be above that type of behavior. These are just observations. I'm not trying to start a war. I do think though, that pedstals can be very wobbly and if your feet aren't firmly planted on them it can be very easy to fall off.

Please, just drop it then. Nobody has to have the last word.

I just want to learn about XBL and PSN here.

"And the Xbox division has lost much more money then the PS3 has, or will. MS reported a loss of 1.2 billion in just one quarter. They just had their first profitable quarter... but they got LOTS to make up."

In what way does this have any effect on how much enjoyment the users get out of Live? Microsoft has only ever been profitable on two things. Windows and Office. Their loss of money on any other endevor should come as no surprise whatsoever.
It doesn't... that was not my point. I was just responding to this:

The PS network should have a second tier option for people who want better features, maybe they wouldn't be loosing their butts in the gaming division.

But FACTUALLY, they're both losing money in the first 2 years of their next-gen consoles... So the above statement is obviously just a little swipe and the PS3, but bears no truth. The free PSN is a selling point for some... And Xbox having Live does not bring in enough profit to make it loose "less" than the PS3...

Blame it on the RROD, development costs, slow growth, or whatever.

I have both systems and enjoy them both... I'm not bashing either out-of-had based on weird fanboy-like loyalty.



I don't know why people are so giddy about Live... It is great, and it works well... but with a single software update giving you access to your buddy row on the XMB for the PS3, the features gap is pretty much completely closed... So what then? I guess there's always something to bash. :rolleyes:
I rest my case. ;)

And I rest mine. :rolleyes:

Didn't this comment start out questioning (bashing) person on how much of a fanboy he was being?

No... Read what you quoted from me. I say I don't understand the type of response. I did not pile on the poster with negative characterizations of him, as you did to me.

Now, in both these forums here on AVS I've been accused of being a fanboy of both systems... lol... I guess I'm doing something right then?

This OP asked for the differences... I tried to help. I guess if this were in the PS3 AVSFORUM people would have picked out the negatives I pointed out about the PS3...

One more feature. Since XBox Live Gold costs money, people value their accounts. A griefer that you kicked out of your game can't just create another account immediately and re-join your game under another gamertag without paying for it.

OK, I think I understand. I have a 360, but I'm not a big live player due to the fact that there aren't that many games that I enjoy the multiplayer on. I'm a campaign kinda guy.

So it seems like the main thing is that the friends list is based more in the OS than in the games? I remember seeing my friend sign into PSN on his PS3 and it told him who was online. So does that mean those are his "OS friends"? And he can't start a game and then invite them? He has to set something up with his friends before he starts a game?

Sorry... got distracted... I guess I should have just ignored that one comment I responded to.

If you're not big on the community aspect and multiplayer online games, then it will only come down to your GUI preference.

You're correct about the "main thing"... The Live Dashboard Friends area is accessible from anywhere at any time... This is NOT the case on the PS3.

You can see all your friends and what games they are playing on both systems from the main dashboard. But on the PS3, only games where they code the access to your friends list into the game will you be able to contact them from there. About half the games do this... and half don't. The only current work-around is to EXIT the game, and go do your communication via the XMB directly.

For games like Resistance that allow you to get to your XMB's friends list from in the game, it works similarly to Live. But this is game-specific and not a universal function on the PS3 as it is on Live.

There's a bit more detail in that rant on the PS3 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12070885#post12070885) integration I posted...

One more feature. Since XBox Live Gold costs money, people value their accounts. A griefer that you kicked out of your game can't just create another account immediately and re-join your game under another gamertag without paying for it.
If I'm not mistaken, Sony can associate your PSN ID with a specific PS3... So depending on their banning procedures, they could likely just ban your box and not your name.

I haven't had to report anyone on the PSN yet... Smaller community, so less of a chance to get screaming kids and racists (at this point).

Sony is losing 300 to 500 per console sold and just lowered the price again (new system missing some features of the original).


Yes and No. In a microeconomic sense Sony loses money on an individual sale, but Sony judges "profit" on a a macroeconomic level and promoting blu-ray to Sony's hopeful demise of HD-DVD they are making money. When a corporate holding company (conglomerate) has vertical and horizontal integration, it is only an accounting loss when one corporate entity loses money but by doing so enables another coporate entity to make even more money. If Sony as a whole netted out with a loss, they would not last long. And I am a long-time and exclusively xbox owner.

It doesn't... that was not my point. I was just responding to this:



But FACTUALLY, they're both losing money in the first 2 years of their next-gen consoles... So the above statement is obviously just a little swipe and the PS3, but bears no truth. The free PSN is a selling point for some... And Xbox having Live does not bring in enough profit to make it loose "less" than the PS3...



First, his statement was about the PSN and maybe the PSN is part of why Sony is losing money. I don't see that as a swipe at all.

You never mentioned the fact that Sony lost more in the last 2 Quarters than MS did? You only mentioned the one quarter with the 1 billion charge. That seems more fanboyish than his statement to me... Sony still has the top selling game system and top selling games with the PS2. So I would expect them to be making a profit in the gaming business..

Sony still has the top selling game system and top selling games with the PS2.

Yeah, there are probably more PS2s out there than anything else at this point, but I'm not sure they are selling a ton of new games for it. I haven't seen many PS2 games in the monthly top 10 games list for a while, other than maybe Guitar Hero.

Hell, if you have a PS2, why even buy new games? The used section at any Gamestop has every game you could ever want, and Sony makes nothing off of a used game sale.

But FACTUALLY, they're both losing money in the first 2 years of their next-gen consoles... So the above statement is obviously just a little swipe and the PS3, but bears no truth.

And I rest mine. :rolleyes:

FACTUALLY... we were talking about the PSN vs. LIVE if I remember correctly. I find it hard to believe that MS is loosing money charging for LIVE. My point was if Sony charged something for online they could erase some of the red ink in the gaming division. If I wanted to take a "little swipe" at the disappointing $600 doorstop that my PS3 has become one year in, I could go on for quite some time. :D

First, his statement was about the PSN and maybe the PSN is part of why Sony is losing money. I don't see that as a swipe at all.

You never mentioned the fact that Sony lost more in the last 2 Quarters than MS did? You only mentioned the one quarter with the 1 billion charge. That seems more fanboyish than his statement to me... Sony still has the top selling game system and top selling games with the PS2. So I would expect them to be making a profit in the gaming business..

Of course the PSN is part of why Sony is losing money. The whole PS3 project is known to be in the red... but we all know both Sony and MS expect to be in the red for a while before their "investment" pays off.

I disagree that the PSN should start charging... And I disagree with the assumption made that if they charged they'd be losing less money... I think they'd probably lose just as much, or more... It probably boost sales that the online network is free. Agree with me or not... that was not the point.

That's just a distraction... In the context of this thread, pointing out that the PS3 is losing money simply had no bearing on anything since the comparison is to the 360, which also lost tons of dough in its first 2 years (even with the Live pay-for service). So, I just provided balance to that poster's statement (which was a swipe) and I get jumped on as a fanboy for trying to keep things impartial.

And I was talking about total losses accumulated... not trying to compare individual quarters... They both lose tons of money... it is a wash... What is the point? Why are we talking about financial losses when someone wanted to difference in GUI functionality?!?

Ask yourself why that was even brought up. My problem is that I responded at all... I should have ignored it and not worried about adding a bit of objectivity to something off topic.

Look what happens on "the other side" at even the hint of criticism. My Thread: PS3's Flawed User System (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=812727) (that's kinda still on topic here at least)

Some people are just ridiculous about this stuff. I own a 360 and Live account... That's why I reply to discussions here.

If I wanted to take a "little swipe" at the disappointing $600 doorstop that my PS3 has become one year in, I could go on for quite some time. :D
lol... 'nuff said.