This is in response to the comments made undersaid article:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26924608/first-month-of-xbox-live-now-1.html
As a owner of both the PS3 and 360 there are some stark differences aside from the cost. While the PSOnline is free it lacks many must-have features that are already on the 360. On Live, you have the ability to chat and multitask, invite friends to a game, custom avatars, etc. The PS3 is very clumsy with its game invitations and if you're in the middle of a chat and want to browse around the playstation store, or simply change some PS3 settings, you can't. You must end the chat first. On the 360, a friend can go into private chat with you during a movie or a game. The PS3 still hasn't done this. The 360 was definitely built with Xbox Live as a big centerpiece while the PS3 was built to promote the bluray format and the great content (games/movies) it provides. However, its obvious that Sony's priority is not its online community and its lackluster online experience seems secondary when comparing online experiences between the two systems. The 360 is lucky to inherit a well established community and an online framework capable of handling loads of traffic and DLC. While PS3's online system continues to stumble with its releases, I'm hopeful that they will catch up but since it's free, Sony is not prone to liabilities and nor do they need to feel obligated to improve their online systems.
On the 360 side, Live frequently updatea content and gaming highlights which effectively nurture Live's community. Live has events where you supposedly play against celebs, developers, or reach an achievement to win some prizes like a car. Xbox Live's community also has the ability to submit player reviews or even file complaints.
I'm not hating at PS3 at all, just its online component. Just take a look at my profile/images. I have almost the same number of games on both the PS3 and 360. But when it comes down to online experience, Xbox Live is currently the online system champion and is worth the cost.
Comments
The biggest thing is this: I think a lot of people look at this as a product where its actually a service. And that service, since the publishers/developers have to host it for the PS3, cuts into their profits. It costs money to run servers, maintain them, support them, etc. So on PSN they have to sell DLC to support that, whereas on Live its more a profit maker as Microsoft (in the vast majority of cases) handles the online service for publishers/developers.
That is precisely correct. Unfortunately, if Sony were to begin charging for their service now it would only hurt their branding and we would begin to see a ton of forums going up in flames. Sony has pretty much built PSO without any clear vision of online longevity. Fortunately, they have bluray and are putting out good games.
And you're right. Sony Japan doesn't get online (just ask Phil Harrison), they let two services go by without any real competition last generation (Sega.Net and Live), and really should've been on their second generation of comprehensive services with the PS3, not their first. I think the PS3 has a lot of one-up manship that was done as a reaction to competition without, as you said, a clear vision. It benefits us to some degree, but honestly isn't the best for Sony or its partners.
chikahiro94