PS3's online service.....it sucks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether you've seen it or not isn't really relevant; seeing things is a lot easier without blinders on.

Anyone with reason already knows of the many serious blunders that Sony has made thus far. Everyone else is just unwilling to see it.

The PS3 network, as it stands now, isn't even as good as Xbox Live was when it first launched (Let alone what it has evolved into today). It was a service that was shoe-horned in (Hell, they didn't even seem to know whether they were going to bother until last year).

If you weren't so busy trying to come up with your next pathetic remark then maybe you could see what I was trying to say.

I said that I haven't seen them make any of the mistakes of 1990's Nintendo and Sega(Nintendo's decision to stick with an inferior and costly media format, the way it treated developers, Sega cuttting support for its most profitable console, making their console too hard to program for, etc etc etc), and they have not.

I've already said that it doesn't offer as much as Xbox Live does, so I don't know why you feel that you need to repeat it to me. Even though it needs some work, what it does offer isn't bad, and people do seem to be satisfied with it.
 
Both true, but some of us would be willing to pay for a better service and don't get an option to. Oh and point 2 really doesn't say much does it... :D

I know that the PS2's online service was hardly anything, but the idea is that you are indeed getting something better for your upgrade. Atleast this time Sony has put some kind of effort into delivering a unified service, even if it does need improvement.
 
If you weren't so busy trying to come up with your next pathetic remark then maybe you could see what I was trying to say.

I said that I haven't seen them make any of the mistakes of 1990's Nintendo and Sega(Nintendo's decision to stick with an inferior and costly media format, the way it treated developers, Sega cuttting support for its most profitable console, making their console too hard to program for, etc etc etc), and they have not.

I've already said that it doesn't offer as much as Xbox Live does, so I don't know why you feel that you need to repeat it to me. Even though it needs some work, what it does offer isn't bad, and people do seem to be satisfied with it.

:eek:

The problem is that they have done most of those things; they chose a costly, irregular media format, they treat developers and consumers like morons, they've completely dropped the ball on several of the most advertised features, and their program is ridiculously hard to develop for in comparison to everything else (Not only due to the Cell architecture, but also largely due to the fact that the documentation provided for it is poor at best).
 
:eek:

The problem is that they have done most of those things; they chose a costly, irregular media format, they treat developers and consumers like morons, they've completely dropped the ball on several of the most advertised features, and their program is ridiculously hard to develop for in comparison to everything else (Not only due to the Cell architecture, but also largely due to the fact that the documentation provided for it is poor at best).

What irregular media format? And you do realize that the same thing was said about the ps2. "omg how can we ever program for something so amazing new and advanced?" It's easy when you have people who actually care about the games they're producing and not just the launch games they need out asap for the console. Keep your pants on. Just wait 6months to a year.
 
What irregular media format? And you do realize that the same thing was said about the ps2. "omg how can we ever program for something so amazing new and advanced?" It's easy when you have people who actually care about the games they're producing and not just the launch games they need out asap for the console. Keep your pants on. Just wait 6months to a year.

Blu ray. And "wait a year"? Yeah, go ahead and buy a ps3, then wait a year for them to actually create a good online experience, and have more than one game worth playing at all.

I don't want to play on a console where it takes developers extra years to make games that don't look any better than a console that's been out a year longer.
 
I haven't seen Sony make any of the mistakes of 1990's Nintendo(or while we're at it, 1990's Sega).

The worst thing they've done is make the PS3 rather costly. If it were priced at $300-$400, nowhere near as many people would be complaining.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Nintendo of 1990's: Extreme arrogance about dominant position.
Sony of 2005-Present: Extreme arrogance about dominant position.

Nintendo of 1990's: Forcing a proprietary, expensive format when cheaper/adequate alternatives are available.

Sony of 2005-Present: Forcing a proprietary, expensive format when cheaper/adequate alternatives are available.

Nintendo of 1990's: Launched system with lackluster launch library expecting customers to buy anyway

Sony of 2005-Present: Launched system with lackluster launch library expecting customers to buy anyway

Nintendo of 1990's: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives began to dry up en masse.

Sony of 2005-Present: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives beginning to dry up en masse.

Sony's repeated NUMEROUS mistakes from Nintendo's past, and they don't appear to be changing course any time soon.
 
:eek:

The problem is that they have done most of those things; they chose a costly, irregular media format,

If it were costly and irregular, then it would be reflected in the price of games, and PS3 games on Blu-Ray cost the same thing as 360 games on DVD. Cartridges were a costly and irregular format with it not being uncommon for N64 games to cost $60-80(Player's Choice titles were $40) and PS1 games priced at $40-$50.

they treat developers and consumers like morons,

Broad and vague.

Specific examples of a manufacturer treating a dev like shit would be 1990's Nintendo.

-They only allowed devs to make five games per year.

-They charged ridiculous licensing fees.

-All cartridges(including their packaging) had to manufactured and tested by Nintendo for an additional charge on top of the licensing fee.

-If you developed for Nintendo, then you only developed for Nintendo.

-Nintendo totally controlled the pricing.

-They intentionally created shortages to increase demand, which hurt developers because it limited their profits.

I haven't seen Sony do any of this.

they've completely dropped the ball on several of the most advertised features, and their program is ridiculously hard to develop for in comparison to everything else (Not only due to the Cell architecture, but also largely due to the fact that the documentation provided for it is poor at best).

As I recall, developers complained even more about the PS2 with some even calling it a nightmare. Regardless, the PS3 is not anywhere near as confusing as the Saturn was.

Had Sony cut ties with Square after DQ9 was announced for the DS(like Nintendo did after FF7 was announced for the PS1) or cut support for the PS2 and burned bridges with all of its major developers except Capcom, Konami, and Treasure(like Sega did), then yeah, I'd agree that they were making those same mistakes and I probably wouldn't be buying a PS3 as a result, but they haven't.

As far as the features go, I'll talk about the one concerning this thread. They have not dropped the ball on the online service. It has its shortcomings, but they can be fixed. They said that they would provide a unified online service, and they have, but no one ever expected it to be perfect, and if people are happy with it, then who cares if it's not the same as Xbox Live?
 
Then you haven't been paying attention.

Nintendo of 1990's: Extreme arrogance about dominant position.
Sony of 2005-Present: Extreme arrogance about dominant position.



Nintendo of 1990's: Forcing a proprietary, expensive format when cheaper/adequate alternatives are available.

Sony of 2005-Present: Forcing a proprietary, expensive format when cheaper/adequate alternatives are available.

Already addressed.

Nintendo of 1990's: Launched system with lackluster launch library expecting customers to buy anyway

Sony of 2005-Present: Launched system with lackluster launch library expecting customers to buy anyway

Most consoles have had fairly unimpressive launch titles, and launch libraries(hell, the system launch in general) have very little bearing on how consoles have ended up.

Nintendo of 1990's: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives began to dry up en masse.

Sony of 2005-Present: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives beginning to dry up en masse.

The devs have not been pushed away, it's just that these titles are no longer exclusives, which arguably would have happened anyway due to development costs in conjunction with the popularity of the competing consoles.
 
As far as the features go, I'll talk about the one concerning this thread. They have not dropped the ball on the online service. It has its shortcomings, but they can be fixed. They said that they would provide a unified online service, and they have, but no one ever expected it to be perfect, and if people are happy with it, then who cares if it's not the same as Xbox Live?

You cannot possibly make that statement with any credibility. Sony has most CERTAINLY dropped the ball with regards to online service. They have NOT provided a "Unified online service" as you claim. Do ALL games use the same friends list? NO. Do ALL games support the same online features in the same way? NO. Do ALL games allow you to invite friends to play? NO. Do ALL games allow you to voice chat while playing? NO.

They have dropped the ball, pure and simple, clear as day. It's simple to see and you have to be a Sony worshiper to claim otherwise. Moreover, this fact CANNOT be fixed for the existing games. Yes, later on they could step up and say "Ahem! We have a new service that all games have to be compliant with", but that won't help the games already coded, pressed and shipped. The issue isn't that it's "not the same as" Xbox Live, the issue is that it's NOT AS GOOD AS Xbox Live.

To be fair, it appears they've built a sturdier piece of hardware, whereas the Xbox 360 is a hiccuping, crashing, dying piece of trash.
 
Blu ray. And "wait a year"? Yeah, go ahead and buy a ps3, then wait a year for them to actually create a good online experience, and have more than one game worth playing at all.

I don't want to play on a console where it takes developers extra years to make games that don't look any better than a console that's been out a year longer.

how is bluray irregular? It's the next-gen media format, just as hd-dvd's are. so it would be the same to say that about xbox 360. Show me a list of xbox 360's launch titles. 2nd question to ask yourself is how long has the ps2 been around? you keep bringing up this "online experience." like playing gears of war with some friends over the internet is some marvelous achievement. I actually think LESS people care about online console gaming than you think. I'm sure there's more than just resistance for the ps3 right now. Maybe if you went by something other than reviews you'd see that. reviewers are opinion based keep in mind.

take a look: http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html

I don't think I have to point out whats coming in the next 2 months even.
 
Which has nothing to do with the costs of the media format to the developer.

Which is not the point. It's a technology being forced on the consumer. If the ps3 didn't cost 200 bucks more than the 360, and sony added a 199 bluray player addon, the overpriced ps3 wouldn't be sitting on shelves rotting.
 
Already addressed.
Inadequately and incorrectly, yes. Sony's media choice HAS driven up the cost, the difference is that this time it's reflected in the HARDWARE instead of the SOFTWARE costs upfront. Moreover, they've forced gamers who want to play PS3 games to invest in a format war that's just getting under way and which MOST consumers have no desire to get involved in until a winner emerges.


Most consoles have had fairly unimpressive launch titles, and launch libraries(hell, the system launch in general) have very little bearing on how consoles have ended up.

It's true that most systems have had poor launch lineups (notable exceptions being Dreamcast and Wii). That said, this is a fair point, as some systems with shitty launch lineups (PS1, PS2, DS, for starters) have ended up selling like hotcakes, while others with great launches (Dreamcast) have stumbled later. However, both situations were mitigated by numerous other factors, not the least of which were the financial solvency of the companies involved. While Sony's not in a "sega" state of affairs, they're hurting--bad.

Nintendo of 1990's: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives began to dry up en masse.

Sony of 2005-Present: Arrogance and expense of game development pushed 3rd party devs away from new system, exclusives beginning to dry up en masse.

The devs have not been pushed away, it's just that these titles are no longer exclusives, which arguably would have happened anyway due to development costs in conjunction with the popularity of the competing consoles.

Nonsense, numerous developers who were happy to be Sony exclusive have now gone multiplatform. That is as a direct consequence of the cost of developing for Sony's system, which is inarguably the highest of any next-gen system, with Xbox 360 being a close second. The difference is, of course, that while 360 has great tools, Sony's tools for PS3 are mediocre at best. Of course, as I said before it *appears* that PS3 is a better built unit than 360. I'd say the two points above highlight the clear differences in strengths of the two companies: Sony's better at hardware, Microsoft is better at software.

And what, historically, is the linchpin of a console's success? Oh yes...the software.
 
You cannot possibly make that statement with any credibility. Sony has most CERTAINLY dropped the ball with regards to online service. They have NOT provided a "Unified online service" as you claim. Do ALL games use the same friends list? NO. Do ALL games support the same online features in the same way? NO. Do ALL games allow you to invite friends to play? NO. Do ALL games allow you to voice chat while playing? NO.

Whether or not all games support those things is not Sony's fault. It's up to the developers to provide them. That would be like blaming Sony for VF5 or Lair not being online.

They have dropped the ball, pure and simple, clear as day. It's simple to see and you have to be a Sony worshiper to claim otherwise. Moreover, this fact CANNOT be fixed for the existing games. Yes, later on they could step up and say "Ahem! We have a new service that all games have to be compliant with", but that won't help the games already coded, pressed and shipped. The issue isn't that it's "not the same as" Xbox Live, the issue is that it's NOT AS GOOD AS Xbox Live.

You think that it's not as good as Xbox live, which is your opinion and that's fine, but that's all it is, your opinion.Just because it doesn't impress you doesn't mean that it's bad all around. As I said, if someone is satisfied with it, then who cares what Xbox Live is doing.
 
how is bluray irregular? It's the next-gen media format, just as hd-dvd's are. so it would be the same to say that about xbox 360. Show me a list of xbox 360's launch titles. 2nd question to ask yourself is how long has the ps2 been around? you keep bringing up this "online experience." like playing gears of war with some friends over the internet is some marvelous achievement. I actually think LESS people care about online console gaming than you think. I'm sure there's more than just resistance for the ps3 right now. Maybe if you went by something other than reviews you'd see that. reviewers are opinion based keep in mind.

take a look: http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html

I don't think I have to point out whats coming in the next 2 months even.

So now your best comeback is, the horribly reviewed ps3 games are just bad opinions, we should really play all those horribly reviewed crapfests. Nothing could make me want to play the current slate of ps3 games more than "don't trust the thousands of reviews, they're really not as crappy as they say, and besides, pay 600 dollars now, and there *might* be some games in a year to play!."

awesome, you should work for sony marketing.
 
Whether or not all games support those things is not Sony's fault. It's up to the developers to provide them. That would be like blaming Sony for VF5 or Lair not being online.

Yes, it *IS* Sony's fault. If Sony intended to deliver a unified online gaming service these things would be supported natively in the system's OS and API's, and developers would have well documented procedures for hooking into these systems and a maandate for certification to do so. SONY failed, end of story.


You think that it's not as good as Xbox live, which is your opinion and that's fine, but that's all it is, your opinion.Just because it doesn't impress you doesn't mean that it's bad all around. As I said, if someone is satisfied with it, then who cares what Xbox Live is doing.

No, I know for a FACT it's not as good as Xbox Live, which is bourne out simply by comparing features and capabilities. Xbox Live has more features, more capabilities, a more user friendly interface and functions that work exactly the same way across ALL titles. These are FACTS and are not up for dispute nor for opinion. If people are satisfied with it (some are, MANY are not) that's fine, but what it tells you about those people is that they don't care about ease of use or consistent features and functionality.

Of course, the fact that those things aren't present tells you all you need to know: SONY doesn't care about ease of use or consistent functionality.
 
Inadequately and incorrectly, yes. Sony's media choice HAS driven up the cost, the difference is that this time it's reflected in the HARDWARE instead of the SOFTWARE costs upfront. Moreover, they've forced gamers who want to play PS3 games to invest in a format war that's just getting under way and which MOST consumers have no desire to get involved in until a winner emerges.

That's right. Like I said before, consumer. Not developer.




It's true that most systems have had poor launch lineups (notable exceptions being Dreamcast and Wii). That said, this is a fair point, as some systems with shitty launch lineups (PS1, PS2, DS, for starters) have ended up selling like hotcakes, while others with great launches (Dreamcast) have stumbled later. However, both situations were mitigated by numerous other factors, not the least of which were the financial solvency of the companies involved. While Sony's not in a "sega" state of affairs, they're hurting--bad.


Nonsense, numerous developers who were happy to be Sony exclusive have now gone multiplatform. That is as a direct consequence of the cost of developing for Sony's system, which is inarguably the highest of any next-gen system, with Xbox 360 being a close second. The difference is, of course, that while 360 has great tools, Sony's tools for PS3 are mediocre at best. Of course, as I said before it *appears* that PS3 is a better built unit than 360. I'd say the two points above highlight the clear differences in strengths of the two companies: Sony's better at hardware, Microsoft is better at software.

And what, historically, is the linchpin of a console's success? Oh yes...the software.

They were happy to do this when it was a 100 million to 20 million runaway, but anyone could see that Microsoft and Nintendo's consoles were going to be more popular this time around, and hence devs stand to make more profit from making a title multi-plat.
 
They were happy to do this when it was a 100 million to 20 million runaway, but anyone could see that Microsoft and Nintendo's consoles were going to be more popular this time around, and hence devs stand to make more profit from making a title multi-plat.

Yes, it had nothing to do with Sony's poor decisions.
 
Yes, it *IS* Sony's fault. If Sony intended to deliver a unified online gaming service these things would be supported natively in the system's OS and API's, and developers would have well documented procedures for hooking into these systems and a maandate for certification to do so. SONY failed, end of story.

How do you know that they haven't or can't do so later? Oh yeah, you don't.

No, I know for a FACT it's not as good as Xbox Live, which is bourne out simply by comparing features and capabilities. Xbox Live has more features, more capabilities, a more user friendly interface and functions that work exactly the same way across ALL titles. These are FACTS and are not up for dispute nor for opinion. If people are satisfied with it (some are, MANY are not) that's fine, but what it tells you about those people is that they don't care about ease of use or consistent features and functionality.

Of course, the fact that those things aren't present tells you all you need to know: SONY doesn't care about ease of use or consistent functionality.

Are you dense?

Whether or not one is as good as the other is a matter of personal preference and what someone expects to get out of the service. If they have what they want, then yeah, it's as good as far they are concerned. If they don't have what they want, then no, it's not.
 
That's right. Like I said before, consumer. Not developer.

Actually developers ARE impacted by having to pay for a more expensive media format. Bluray isn't as cheap as DVD is yet, and the extra cost of that media *is* reflected in the $59.99 price tag of this generation versus last gen's (and this gen, via Wii) $49.99.

I find it curious though, you think it's all well and good to shovel unnecessary, non-standard formats down the throats of *consumers* whether they want it or not, yet doing the same to Dev's is bad in your book. Curious.

I'd call BOTH options fucked, as in BOTH cases it's the consumer who takes it in the wallet.



It's true that most systems have had poor launch lineups (notable exceptions being Dreamcast and Wii). That said, this is a fair point, as some systems with shitty launch lineups (PS1, PS2, DS, for starters) have ended up selling like hotcakes, while others with great launches (Dreamcast) have stumbled later. However, both situations were mitigated by numerous other factors, not the least of which were the financial solvency of the companies involved. While Sony's not in a "sega" state of affairs, they're hurting--bad.


They were happy to do this when it was a 100 million to 20 million runaway, but anyone could see that Microsoft and Nintendo's consoles were going to be more popular this time around, and hence devs stand to make more profit from making a title multi-plat.

The alleged install base (which, from the sales figures of the *software* on PS2 and PS1 is a guarantor that the 100 million figures are MASSIVELY off base) certainly affects *publishers* choices of which platforms to publish on, and that will continue to be true as this new generation drags out. It'll be interesting to see NPD's numbers for January once we get through with this month.
 
So now your best comeback is, the horribly reviewed ps3 games are just bad opinions, we should really play all those horribly reviewed crapfests. Nothing could make me want to play the current slate of ps3 games more than "don't trust the thousands of reviews, they're really not as crappy as they say, and besides, pay 600 dollars now, and there *might* be some games in a year to play!."

awesome, you should work for sony marketing.

haha, yeah. that's exactly what my comeback was. I didn't say all the reviews weren't correct. I only use reviews as a base, or guideline. If any game sparks my interest I'm up for checking it out. But a game reviewed at a 7-8 range might ACTUALLY be worth picking up if its you're cup of tea. The sports games, nba 2k7 and tiger woods, need for speed, madden, the marvel alliance game, ridge racer, nba 07 and tony hawk all got decent/good reviews. Now ign.com might say a 7 is decent while I'd say a 7 should be a good game. I didn't read the reviews though. But if you like i'll even do that. I guess you only buy games that are rated 9.5+. Your choice.

"thousands of reviews" also made me chuckle a little.

you could also spend $500 on a console, buy an $80 300GB sata drive, install linux and have a nice little pc. OR, you could save roughly $300 and enjoy some bluray on a nice hdtv.
 
How do you know that they haven't or can't do so later? Oh yeah, you don't.

OK, this one's simple: Are you able to update thousands of read-only disks from afar after the fact? No, no you're not.

Are you dense?

Whether or not one is as good as the other is a matter of personal preference and what someone expects to get out of the service. If they have what they want, then yeah, it's as good as far they are concerned. If they don't have what they want, then no, it's not.

No, YOU are the one being dense here. The measure of which service is superior is an objective measure: which supports more features and does so more consistently? Simple: Xbox Live, *period*. That's not an OPINION, it's a FACT that's demonstrable in reality, *right now*. Xbox Live has MORE features, MORE capabilities and offers them more CONSISTENTLY across all Xbox 360 software, end of story. You can't disprove that (because it's FACT), you can't change it (see prior point) and you can't deny it. At least, not with anything resembling *Credibility*.
 
OK, this one's simple: Are you able to update thousands of read-only disks from afar after the fact? No, no you're not.



No, YOU are the one being dense here. The measure of which service is superior is an objective measure: which supports more features and does so more consistently? Simple: Xbox Live, *period*. That's not an OPINION, it's a FACT that's demonstrable in reality, *right now*. Xbox Live has MORE features, MORE capabilities and offers them more CONSISTENTLY across all Xbox 360 software, end of story. You can't disprove that (because it's FACT), you can't change it (see prior point) and you can't deny it. At least, not with anything resembling *Credibility*.

It's no use man. The last refuge of argument is that "that's just your opinion". I decided that the NES has better graphics than the ps3. "That's just my opinion, you can't refute it".

Anyone who thinks the ps3 online system is as good as xbox live is delusional.

"but that's just your opinion"

ok chief.
 
Actually developers ARE impacted by having to pay for a more expensive media format. Bluray isn't as cheap as DVD is yet, and the extra cost of that media *is* reflected in the $59.99 price tag of this generation versus last gen's (and this gen, via Wii) $49.99.

Xbox 360 games on DVD are $60 dollars as well.

I find it curious though, you think it's all well and good to shovel unnecessary, non-standard formats down the throats of *consumers* whether they want it or not, yet doing the same to Dev's is bad in your book. Curious.

Where did I say that it was good? Oh yeah, never.


The alleged install base (which, from the sales figures of the *software* on PS2 and PS1 is a guarantor that the 100 million figures are MASSIVELY off base) certainly affects *publishers* choices of which platforms to publish on, and that will continue to be true as this new generation drags out. It'll be interesting to see NPD's numbers for January once we get through with this month.[/QUOTE]

OK, this one's simple: Are you able to update thousands of read-only disks from afar after the fact? No, no you're not.

I never said this either.

YOU are the one being dense here. The measure of which service is superior is an objective measure: which supports more features and does so more consistently? Simple: Xbox Live, *period*. That's not an OPINION, it's a FACT that's demonstrable in reality, *right now*. Xbox Live has MORE features, MORE capabilities and offers them more CONSISTENTLY across all Xbox 360 software, end of story. You can't disprove that (because it's FACT), you can't change it (see prior point) and you can't deny it. At least, not with anything resembling *Credibility*.

Everyone doesn't care about the same features. Even if the PlayStation Network doesn't have everything that Xbox Live does, some people are happy with what it does provide and couldn't care less that it's missing some of the Live features.

There are people out there who think that Xbox Live isn't that great and there are even people out there who prefer Sony's service.

So you see, it is a matter of personal preference, not fact.
 
It's no use man. The last refuge of argument is that "that's just your opinion". I decided that the NES has better graphics than the ps3. "That's just my opinion, you can't refute it".

Anyone who thinks the ps3 online system is as good as xbox live is delusional.

"but that's just your opinion"

ok chief.

That's exactly true, when there's no objective measure to fall back on people *routinely* go with the "that's just your opinion" argument because they think it's a failsafe argument. Tip of the day: It ISN'T. Some things are legitimately just "opinion". Things like, say, "Green is prettier than blue". That's just opinion, no objective way to prove or disprove it, it's just a preference. Other things are fact and are not subject to the whims of opinions. That gravity exists, for example, is an objective, undeniable fact. You can jump out of an airplane with no parachute and declare all the way down that in your opinion there's no such thing as gravity, but that won't change the fact that you're going to end up a road pizza.

And bear in mind, I don't defend MS just out of some absurd, rabid loyalty. As anyone who's seen my *cough*excessive*cough* bitching about being uber-dicked repeatedly for the past 6 months by their "service" for Xbox 360 knows, I have no reason to stand and defend them. However, facts are what they are, and the fact that I've been repeatedly dicked by their shoddy support doesn't change the fact that Xbox Live is the single most full featured, capable online service offered on any console, *period*.
 
That's exactly true, when there's no objective measure to fall back on people *routinely* go with the "that's just your opinion" argument because they think it's a failsafe argument. Tip of the day: It ISN'T. Some things are legitimately just "opinion". Things like, say, "Green is prettier than blue". That's just opinion, no objective way to prove or disprove it, it's just a preference. Other things are fact and are not subject to the whims of opinions. That gravity exists, for example, is an objective, undeniable fact. You can jump out of an airplane with no parachute and declare all the way down that in your opinion there's no such thing as gravity, but that won't change the fact that you're going to end up a road pizza.

And bear in mind, I don't defend MS just out of some absurd, rabid loyalty. As anyone who's seen my *cough*excessive*cough* bitching about being uber-dicked repeatedly for the past 6 months by their "service" for Xbox 360 knows, I have no reason to stand and defend them. However, facts are what they are, and the fact that I've been repeatedly dicked by their shoddy support doesn't change the fact that Xbox Live is the single most full featured, capable online service offered on any console, *period*.

Yup, objectively there is no leg to stand on to say that psonline is equal to or even close to live. Ahh well.
 
Xbox 360 games on DVD are $60 dollars as well.



Where did I say that it was good? Oh yeah, never.


The alleged install base (which, from the sales figures of the *software* on PS2 and PS1 is a guarantor that the 100 million figures are MASSIVELY off base) certainly affects *publishers* choices of which platforms to publish on, and that will continue to be true as this new generation drags out. It'll be interesting to see NPD's numbers for January once we get through with this month.


I never said this either.



Everyone doesn't care about the same features. Even if the PlayStation Network doesn't have everything that Xbox Live does, some people are happy with what it does provide and couldn't care less that it's missing some of the Live features.

There are people out there who think that Xbox Live isn't that great and there are even people out there who prefer Sony's service.

So you see, it is a matter of personal preference, not fact.

The fact that some people prefer to eat greasy, lard-caked hamburgers full of fat in NO WAY alters the FACT that a nice chicken salad is more healthy. You simply cannot argue that this is a matter of personal preference with any credibility. Xbox Live has MORE features, MORE capabilities and a more CONSISTENT implementation than PS3's. That's a *fact*, it's not an opinion.

Unfortunately, undereducated people like you tend to think *anything* is open to being "just an opinion". Perhaps we should find a book that your "opinion" tells you doesn't really exist and we'll chuck it at your head to find out.
 
The fact that some people prefer to eat greasy, lard-caked hamburgers full of fat in NO WAY alters the FACT that a nice chicken salad is more healthy. .

what about that guy that ate like just meat and lived to be 110 or something?
 
The fact that some people prefer to eat greasy, lard-caked hamburgers full of fat in NO WAY alters the FACT that a nice chicken salad is more healthy. You simply cannot argue that this is a matter of personal preference with any credibility. Xbox Live has MORE features, MORE capabilities and a more CONSISTENT implementation than PS3's. That's a *fact*, it's not an opinion.

And as I said, everyone doesn't care about those features, so to someone who doesn't and has gotten what they want out of Sony's service, it's just as good. Some of the people in this thread have said that it doesn't bother them.

Unfortunately, undereducated people like you tend to think *anything* is open to being "just an opinion". Perhaps we should find a book that your "opinion" tells you doesn't really exist and we'll chuck it at your head to find out.

"Xbox Live offers more features than the PlayStation Network." - Fact

"Xbox Live is better than the PlayStation Network." - Opinion

So before you make assinine remarks about my level of education(something you don't know a goddamn thing about), maybe you should learn the difference between a fact and an opinion, and since you obviously haven't anything new to say other than a poorly-attempted insult, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you.
 
let me make is simple for all you multi-quoters...

xbox360 has everything ps3 has + more. xbox360 wins.

I can only go by the FACTS, not predictions of what the PS3 WILL be in a year.
 
Do yourselves a favor; click his user profile, then click "Add Lord Nassirbannipal to Your Ignore List". Otherwise, you're going to end up getting banned because you're basically arguing with Ken Kutaragi.

He's going to argue with you guys until he is blue in the face, despite being universally wrong on all fronts. He'll continue to argue that the PSN is "just as good", despite lacking the features, consistancy, performance, and ease-of-use that Xbox Live has. He'll further his point by arguing how the "upcoming" PS3 library will be better than what is already out for the 360, despite the fact that most of those "Wait and see in two months!!!" people are going to be facing delays of most of those titles.

In the end, you're just wasting time. Use the Ignore feature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top