Is free better or is pay the way?

More often than not, when discussions about the value of paying for a gold account on XBL or playing for free on PSN arises, it devolves into fanboy drivel. Personally, I think that this does nothing to add to the conversation and if anything adds to the already growing fanaticism of people loyal to a corporation rather than a lifestyle, the lifestyle of being a gamer. Having preferences is one thing, but what you see more often than not, on many sites and blogs is another beast all together. With that being said, I would like to express my opinion on the differences in quality and the merits of both PSN and XBL.

When you really break it down and look at it, both companies, Sony and Microsoft play to their obvious advantages. Take for example Sony. Granted, I don't have many friends personally (despite my efforts) who own a PS3, but, out of the ones I do, only one had a hardware related issue with said product. A mere six months after his initial purchase of a PS3 it died on him. The cause of his calamity is irrelevant, especially considering that both of us had already been through several 360's over the years. Thus my point. Sony is known for it's hardware reliability and the PS3 is no different. Now, we all know that the PS2 had some issues with it's failure rate, something that was never truly disclosed by Sony but even still, the level of hardware failure seen with the 360 is inexcusable. To MS's credit, after some relenting, they made good on the problem and offered an excellent solution to the problem. Hardware plays into Sony's favor, something we can all agree to.

Then there is the other side to this coin. Microsoft, love them or hate them, is undeniably a software company and like Sony and it's hardware, the difference is obvious and glaring.

My wife purchased my PS3 on Valentines day for me. I had been holding out on getting a PS3 until the release of Killzone 2, the one game I really wanted that was PS3 only. As much as I love the game, trying to play it online is a chore at best, bothersome at worst, mainly because I have grown accustomed to the quality of XBL.

PSN may be free but let's not kid ourselves, it's not XBL and chances are, it won't be, at least, anytime soon. Not too long ago we got 16 player text chatting on PSN. I don't know about you, but I didn't ask for this feature and no one I know did either. It's cool to have options, yes. However, last time I checked, PS3 owners have being clamoring for something much more substantial in it's offering of updates, more specifically, options pertaining to socializing with friends and fostering a sense of community. The intergration of XBL and xbox.com only further shows the level of detail and planning that MS put into it's online infrastructure.  For a system who's slogan is it only does everything, this seems to be a glaring example of how you can be a jack of all trades yet a master at none.

Undoubtedly some will argue the point that XBL has been out longer and that is true. However, should that have stopped Sony from at the very least, piggy backing the ideas and concepts of XBL that work and dare I say, expand upon those ideas when creating PSN? Instead of cross game invites/chatting, we get Home. Ambitous to be sure but really, I as a PS3 owner would like something more usable. If the argument is that Live was first then learn from Live, not use that as an excuse for why you can't compare to it.

This leads us into my next point. Charging for the online console experience. Gaming is not a cheap hobby by any means. You can find bargains sure, but, with the price of new games usually being $59.99, you want to get the best value for your dollar. Why would this not be the case when considering a premium service? $50's for an entire year of XBL gold is pocket change in the grand scheme of gaming. This is a point that many opponents of XBL like to bring up, that you have to pay to play. The real question is, are you getting the value from that investment? I try and think of it this way. If PSN charged as much as XBL would you pay for it? The answer, for me at least, is absolutely not. Especially compared to XBL. Even if XBL was free, I'd still have more time and effort spent using it rather than PSN. I give props to Sony for doing what it has done with PSN thus far.They've brought it a long way from where it started. However, Sony knows that they can't charge for PSN, at least not in it's current state, because it simply doesn't have the quality of it's nearest competition.

Attempting to match feature for feature on XBL isn't going to work either. Simply put, the quality isn't there. Online interaction was an after thought, more of a reaction to XBL, than it was a plan to bring gamers together.Once they realized the success that MS was getting form XBL, they followed suit. From the beginning XBL has been an integral part of the 360's being. Much like the sixaxis, Natal and the "wand" are reaction to the Wii mote.

 XBL does a much better job of fostering, harnessing and bringing together the community of online console gamers than PSN does and does a better job of keeping them there. The user interface, ease of use and sheer options of communicating with friends is just something that Home and trophies aren't able to do at this point. Who knows what the future may hold, but as it stands now and for the foreseeable future, XBL will continue to hold the torch  for the online console experience.

In the end as I stated previously, it's all about preference. No argument I've read or heard has convinced me of any level of equality between PSN and XBL. That would be like someone telling me that the 360 is just as reliable as the PS3 is. It simply isn't the case. Pound for pound, feature for feature, everything from comparing NXE to XMB, from your PSN card needing to sync versus the speed and functionality of the gamercard, it's better on XBL imo, and warrants the slight investment. PSN is free and that is not a bad thing. However, keep in mind that you get what you pay for. In this case it's a premium service that's simply better in every way. Now, if we could just combine the two so we had a reliable console with awesome online.

One can only hope.

[ubiquitious]

And I know the feeling. Going from Live to PSN is a rough transition. There are so many seemingly simple things on Live that we take advantage of.

I don't mind paying the fee for live, since I use it as a social tool just as much as I use it for gaming. But I would really like to see some competition for it. Maybe a lower price? Or more resources put into it so it can stay ahead.

Hopefully, next generation will have equally good online and hardware.

[wages of sin]

I appreciate you contributing to my blog! I'm new and hopefully I can have some sort of "impact" on posts and blogs.

[lh_swe]

And I am not trying to be smug here, the only thing he mentioned was cross game chat, sure it's nice but nothing necessary. I won't pretend for one second that PSN is better but Live is not leaps and bounds ahead like you are making it seem.

The bottom line is it's up to what you want and if cross game chat is a necessity then Live will obviousy be the better choice.

[Anon1974]

I found it a smooth transition from XBL to PSN and I can't think of a single thing from XBL that I miss. It certainly isn't the legions of foulmouthed 12 year olds that seem relatively absent on the PSN. At the end of the day I just want to play my games online.

He mentions PS3 owners are "clamoring" for cross game chat. I don't know one. Personally, I never used it once in the 2 years I subscribed to XBL and I won't use it when it comes to the PS3. Why on earth would I need to be able to talk to someone who isn't playing the same game as me? That's just rude, in my opinion.

Ever try to talk to someone on the phone when they're doing something else? It's ignorant. If you want to chat with me, make sure you can focus your attention on the person you're talking to. Otherwise, don't bother.

[Saaking]

So cross game chat is worth the 50 bucks a year? I don't think so. I pay for XBL mainly becuase I have no choice. It's either that or I simply cannot play online games (which in some cases is like half the game); however, if MS offered basic online play for free no one would pay for their services.

Why? Because XBL doesn't offer anything that PSN doesn't. XBL isn't "superior" to PSN and in fact there's much bigger games such as Resistance 2 and MAG on PSN.

This myth that XBL is somehow worth the 50 bucks needs to be squashed. It is not, and as long as you sit there telling yourself that it is, nothing will change. MS simply cannot justify the price anymore. They should do what Sony plans to do:

Offer online play for free and all the other services for an optional fee. Plain and simple don't you think?

[Tomonobu Itagaki]

You have a great wife, not much women would buy a $400 sociability killer for Valentine's Day. Whatever happens, stick with her.

[sakura2009]

free is better

[SilentNegotiator]

Luckily, I have a cell phone/phone from this century, so I don't need to pay for chat features on my console.

[Jinxstar]

So what I see here is very few examples and a lot of talk. I will tell you I have had a 360 and now have a PS3 and the "Features" you mention is actually A feature. Cross game chat. Something I ad many don't care about. I have a headset. I never use it. I prefer the PS3 online because while there is still racial slurring and otherwise... It is about 95% less on the PS3. As well as about 90% less people with mic's in general.

I don't have a console for the "Community" I have it for competitive gaming against random people and a few friends. If I want the community I would simply log into "home". Which has grown a lot and is something well above anything on XBL. There are a ton of people chatting and haning out there. Not my thing but it is for many.

I have my gaming PC for the community. I game on steam and other places for "Community" because in all seriousness a gaming community is much more driven, aggressive and smart in a game like WoW then on any console...

The big complaint you seem to have is no patience for the free service. Syncing trophies(Takes all of 6 seconds)or maybe it's installing demos after downloading them. Pound for pound stability and in game playability is the same, if not better, on the PS3. I am saying this from experiencing games like COD4 on both systems and ultimately thinking the PS3 was superior for smoothness of play.

Netflix, Cross game invites, and all these online features do exist on the PS3 now as well.

My biggest gripe overall is nickle and diming. That argument you can't get around...

[slessman]

Pay to play is the best. I know that a lot of people want a game that they do not have to pay for, but I don't think that is the way you want to go. I think that the free games are of lesser quality. The quality issue is a major concern of mine so I subscribe to Ryzom. This game is perfect for me and so I am not ashamed to pay a monthly subscription fee for it.

[thor]

It's just a very clever way of getting more money out of each console you sell, nothing more. Everyone loves to lock you into a contract, because people are more able to afford things in the long run and only look at the small cost. But actually over the time you spend with the console, you spend the price of the console again on the subscription.

You said it yourself, it's only better because of forward-planning. It's harder to retroactively add these features. Though, we see that at the moment there's very little differentiating PSN from XBL. Game stability issues are dependent on so many things - the 360's biggest games don't support 32 players, but Killzone 2 does, so that could explain any issues. As could the fact that 99% of those kind of problems are down to the game's own net code and not the online service - see Gears of War 2.

Cross-game invites have been in PS3 games for ages now - and more and more games support them. The big games all have party systems. Nearly every online game has voice chat - meaning that the only part missing from the experience is the chat whilst you organize which game you want to play. (I really can't see a point in cross-game chat other than this).

As soon as someone else comes with forward planning and offers a service equal or better than XBL, they don't have to charge for it. That would make people wonder why they are paying to play. In actual fact, they really should be, since Steam IMHO offers a far superior online service - couple it with Ventrilo for chat and it has more, for free.

[W-k]

i would like to see them add skype to the ps3 kinda like on the psp if you want cross game chat use skype as long as it works in game then that's all that matters the only reason i would want it and probably why its so popular on live is i don't have to talk to anyone but my friends while where playing a game online.

[pixelsword]

That's the reason why I don't game online on the 360 at home, and if PS3 does the same thing, then I'll mix it up on PC and get a Wii.

[geoholyhart]

My friends and me have come to the definite conclusion that Microsoft is far better at console Software, while Sony is far better with hardware. Personally I prefer free, why? $50 is not a lot for one person, BUT what about family who loves to game? It gets really expensive trying to pay Live for my 2 younger brothers and mom (who loves Music games). Gamertags weren't meant to be shared!

[Digitaldude]

Its unfortunate for me living so far away from America and Europe where most gamers are from, so my connection playing online is rather bad, making PSN pretty damn laggy.