Why is it always what PSN can do to match Live?

It seems like N4G is flooded with bloggers writing about how PSN is so inferior to XBL and that this is a major reason many choose a 360 over a PS3. What I never hear is why doesn't Microsoft offer silver members comparable features/functionality to what PSN offers and how, if they were to do so, they could potentially get some PS3 only owners to pick up a 360.

This generation really became all about online gaming. PC users, I know you've been doing this forever but I'm a console guy so I'm coming from that perspective. Oh yeah, I'm only speaking for myself here so know that I'm not purporting to be the voice for gamers everywhere. That said, I can't help but think that I'd pick up a 360 if MS announced that silver members could now play games online but could not use the party system or cross game chat or game invites or voice messages or whatever other feature gold members currently have that PSN users don't.

Most of the people complaining about the lack of PSN features are multi-console owners. I suppose this makes sense considering you have to have something to complain about it. But no one ever considers the flip-side of this. I'm talking about the guy, e.g. me, that doesn't have these features and never used them could care less about them. Really, all I want to do is get online and play other people. I work and go to school full-time. I really don't give two craps about using any of the aforementioned XBL features because I'm not really that concerned or interested in organizing a party. I just want to get on and, again, get a couple of matches going.

That said, I recently watched someone play a round of Gears of War 2 while in a party chat and I can't lie, it seemed pretty darn cool. Only hearing your buddies, never hearing the other side use the words we all know are freely spoken on Live, and having the ability to momentarily leave the party to talk trash if you so desired were all impressive.

However, I wasn't so impressed that I was ready to plunk down 50 bucks a year. If someone is using profanity on PSN and I don't want to hear it, I mute them. Yeah assembling a party is more of an arduous task than it is on Live, but it's not exactly impossible and I don't really play with people on my friends list all that often anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm surprised that no one talks about what MS could do to get a gamer like myself. Or, better yet, I wonder how many gold subscribers would let their subscription lapse and settle for a silver membership if you got the same features as PSN.

Just my thoughts man. See you online. 

[PS360WII]

Oh don't worry there are plenty of people saying Live should be free like PSN. You only see more stories about PSN should be more like Live because of the features. Much like you hear about the many features of the PS3.

You say you just want to play online gaming. Well then the Wii's online service should work just as well for you then. Kind of like how I don't really care about all the extra features the 360 and PS3 can do as I already have a PC hooked up to my TV to do all that plus more.

[Anon1974]

Just look at their financial statements. MS games had their first ever profitable year in fiscal 2008. If you take MS's word that there are 17 million paying gold accounts - that means we're talking something like $800-850 million in revenue. Now, of course it costs money to run XBL, but it certainly doesn't cost $800 million to run XBL.
So there you have it. Without XBL fees from gold members, MS Games wouldn't be making a cent. If they started giving silver members more, they wouldn't change to gold now, would they?

[Whiteford88]

Honestly I'm just like you, I couldn't care less if I had the same features as XBL, it's not what I bought my Playstation 3 for.

[kwicksandz]

I guess the saying is true. You cant miss what you never had. I have howver been using live for a year now and whenever i logon to psn, its failings become immediately apparent.

I think $50 a year is worth it just for the fact that 99% of people on live have a headset either from their console or live subby. I have played full warhawk games with no one talking and that game came bundled with a headset!

If your mainly a single player gamer maybe live isn't worth it to you but i can justify the expense with the fun it provides

[socomnick]

why is it always what psn can do to match xbox live ? well because psn is vastly inferior :/

[sertz]

Xbox Live has its advantages, like the fact most people have a headset, and its a bit easier to party up with friends. Those are the things Live does better and that's it.

As for PSN, its completely free. Its games are more reasonably priced (using real world money instead of some retarded M$ points). Its also very organized and fast.

I can still party up with friends on PSN, albeit a little longer than with Live. I also have a good group of friends that always play COD4 with me and they all have headsets, so really its not all that different than Live in that regard.

With Live, its spoon fed to you by your loving mother called Microsoft, that instead of expecting hugs and kisses, wants your cold hard cash.

PSN however is given to you as a sort of bonus, expecting not much in return except your support, feedback and the occasional online purchase.