Has PS+ eclipsed Xbox Live?

  • 66 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by SolidGame_basic (16028 posts) -

Xbox Live pretty much dominated Sony the last two generations, but it looks like Sony has made a huge comeback with PS+. PS+ gives tons of value for the money, although it does suck that you have to pay to play online. Xbox now offers this Xbox Gold thing where you get games you played a long time ago for free which I guess is cool. Has Xbox Live been dethroned though?

#2 Posted by mems_1224 (45746 posts) -

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

#3 Posted by kingsfan_0333 (1604 posts) -

Depends on what's important to you.

For me personally, I owned a ps3 last gen and I didn't bother downloading any of the "free" games with ps+. Same with the games with gold. There's enough new stuff to dive into. I'm more concerned with the online numbers. How many people are currently playing the game that I want to play. The Killzone community died off pretty quickly for me last gen, so that hurt the replay value in my eyes.

But for people who are into downloading the free games..obviously the ps+ service packs more value.

#4 Edited by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

@mems_1224: Senile Mems strikes again. Didnt Xbox One cross game chat get patched because it was lackluster? Seems your comment is based on last gen. PS4 online is on par with XBL like it or not.

#5 Edited by AppleFan1991 (3022 posts) -

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

This. PS+ is cheaper and has much better "free" games but in terms of actual functionality of the online service, XBL is still ahead. As someone who owns both the PS4 and the Xbox One, the online is much smoother and more reliable on XBL in comparison to PS+. (Inb4 a fanboy posts stuff about the Titanfall online issues a few days ago. It's called millions of people hammering your servers at once.)

#6 Edited by misterpmedia (3362 posts) -

Definitely in value. Although I do hear people say that the usual belittling of PSN being totally horrible connectivity wise is mostly fanboy myth. Can't really defend the constant maintenance though, I bet that's a bitch.

#7 Edited by Suppaman100 (3583 posts) -

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

#8 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149481 posts) -

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

Do you have it? If not....then this statement is pointless.

#9 Posted by mems_1224 (45746 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

Do you have it? If not....then this statement is pointless.

Have what? PS+? Yes, I do.

#10 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17095 posts) -

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

This.

#11 Posted by bezza2011 (2215 posts) -

@WadeFan said:

@mems_1224 said:

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

This. PS+ is cheaper and has much better "free" games but in terms of actual functionality of the online service, XBL is still ahead. As someone who owns both the PS4 and the Xbox One, the online is much smoother and more reliable on XBL in comparison to PS+. (Inb4 a fanboy posts stuff about the Titanfall online issues a few days ago. It's called millions of people hammering your servers at once.)

Sarcasm "But what about the Xbox Ones 300'000 Dedicated servers so this does not happen????? as I thought no matter what dedicated servers you use because for every game there is a dedicated server, you still get problems lol

I've had no problems with my online with ps+ and i'm getting free games i can't grumble.

I don't have an Xbox One but the way i feel about it is that it's a rip off i mean has anyone told people that sony allow users to use netflix and all the online apps for free and you don't need ps+, but xbox live is required for everything even skype lol I'm just saying value you for money wins every time

#12 Posted by Bishop1310 (888 posts) -

I have sooo many problems with lagg on PS+ on my ps4. I don't own a ps3 so I cant comment.. I have zero issues on the X1.. PS+ lets you rent games for free for a bit.. Cool I guess but I've gotten gears, halo 3, civilization for free and to keep on my 360.. I'm a much bigger live fan then PS+ at this point.

#13 Posted by handssss (1624 posts) -

the only things XBL has ever really had over PSN that anyone ever really cared about were speed and party chat.

It's lost those advantages.

#14 Posted by Snugenz (11409 posts) -

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

#15 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

this^ PSN = better free games XBL = better online play.

The difference is its really easy for MS to add better free games at a moments notice, but for sony to catch up to MS for online play will be 5+ and 5 billion+ dollars building server farms world wide. I just don't see it happening.

#16 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -
@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

#17 Posted by Snugenz (11409 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

Well that's why i said PSN and not PS+, PSN just performs alot smoother now on the PS4 than it used to, the thought of downloading a 10gig game on the PS3 was off-putting but i've no prob with it on my PS4, as it seems to use my full connection now.

As for PS+ and MP gaming, the PS4 is new so they don't have many games they can offer with the service so that'll definitely improve and MP gaming has been fine for the little bit of KZ:SF i've played online.

#18 Posted by handssss (1624 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

every game doesn't have servers with MS, they just said every game CAN have servers and its ultimately up to if a dev wants to go along with all of MS's terms and conditions.

And if you really cared about servers, I don't know how you can even trust MS to begin with. Paid for service since 2002 yet they only provide servers to their games this gen? Yes even Gears 3 and Judgment, pretty much the only exclusives with dedicated servers the 360 got were using Epic's tech and not MS's. Sony been providing servers for several IPs even last gen and that was before anyone was required to pay money to use MP.

#19 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@darkangel115 said:
@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

Well that's why i said PSN and not PS+, PSN just performs alot smoother now on the PS4 than it used to, the thought of downloading a 10gig game on the PS3 was off-putting but i've no prob with it on my PS4, as it seems to use my full connection now.

As for PS+ and MP gaming, the PS4 is new so they don't have many games they can offer with the service so that'll definitely improve and MP gaming has been fine for the little bit of KZ:SF i've played online.

Still its the same PSN as always. The store is faster but only due to the lower traffic most likely. your gonna get better speeds when sharing a store with 6 million people compared to 80 million. Its like saying walmart lines go faster when there are 30 people in the store compared to 80 people. The truth is the lines are the same speed, the amount of shoppers have changed. Sony is still renting from amazon which are kinda outdated servers and not many data centers as they weren't built for online gaming like MS did with their platform. Sony can always shell out a few extra bucks to have amazon increase their bandwidth into and out of the store and get on a better server (not sure if you are familiar with server rentals, but you rent by specs and bandwidth) but to me the store still loads the same and the online play hasn't been upgraded at all either. The games download faster due to lower user base but will slow down over time unless they upgrade.

#20 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (1835 posts) -

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

#21 Edited by VERTIGO47 (6240 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

Yep, this.

Like I said in another post, Sony will always play catch up.

#22 Posted by StormyJoe (4577 posts) -

Xbox Live pretty much dominated Sony the last two generations, but it looks like Sony has made a huge comeback with PS+. PS+ gives tons of value for the money, although it does suck that you have to pay to play online. Xbox now offers this Xbox Gold thing where you get games you played a long time ago for free which I guess is cool. Has Xbox Live been dethroned though?

the gap has closed a lot. That's what competition does for the marketplace.

#23 Posted by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

To everyone saying XBL is "smoother" what do you mean? Seems you're just blowing hot air just because XBL was better last gen. Sorry, trends change. You'd think PS+ has laggy gameplay and XBL has butter smooth gameplay or something, this isn't the case. Just smoke and mirrors from MS and their shills. If XBL is smoother, give a direct example of how.

#24 Posted by AppleFan1991 (3022 posts) -

@WadeFan said:

@mems_1224 said:

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

This. PS+ is cheaper and has much better "free" games but in terms of actual functionality of the online service, XBL is still ahead. As someone who owns both the PS4 and the Xbox One, the online is much smoother and more reliable on XBL in comparison to PS+. (Inb4 a fanboy posts stuff about the Titanfall online issues a few days ago. It's called millions of people hammering your servers at once.)

Sarcasm "But what about the Xbox Ones 300'000 Dedicated servers so this does not happen????? as I thought no matter what dedicated servers you use because for every game there is a dedicated server, you still get problems lol

I've had no problems with my online with ps+ and i'm getting free games i can't grumble.

I don't have an Xbox One but the way i feel about it is that it's a rip off i mean has anyone told people that sony allow users to use netflix and all the online apps for free and you don't need ps+, but xbox live is required for everything even skype lol I'm just saying value you for money wins every time

Which is why I said that PS has better value, but in terms of overall online quality ( HD chats, no random "PSN maintenance for 6 hours") I don't have to worry about that on my XBO. Also, using the same connection, games are quicker and lag MUCH less on XBL. Games that I have for both systems like COD or Tomb Raider are smooth online for the XBO, but not for PSN. They're good, but not yet great. But in terms of overall value, yes PSN is better.

#25 Posted by Suppaman100 (3583 posts) -

@Suppaman100 said:

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

No, there is no difference. Quality of connection depends on a lot of things btw.

And on top of that, PS+ is cheaper.

#26 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

It did last gen.

#27 Edited by lostrib (31568 posts) -

Since you need both for next gen consoles in order to play online, PS+ would seem like the better deal

#28 Posted by hoyalawya (330 posts) -

There is a also a differentiation for people embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem. XBL has integration of Xbox Music, SkyDrive, Skype and SmartGlass. I assume that Microsoft will continue to add more features into the TV integration too. And apps will keep coming. E.g., Weather, Twitter, Facebook, WhatApp, Line, etc. I can see myself snapping the Weather or Twitter app while playing games. Personally, I hate using my cellphone and tablet while playing games.

Soon we will see indie games utilizing Azure servers. This has opened up a possibility of multiplayer indie games using cloud infrastructure.

#29 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

@handssss said:

@darkangel115 said:
@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

every game doesn't have servers with MS, they just said every game CAN have servers and its ultimately up to if a dev wants to go along with all of MS's terms and conditions.

And if you really cared about servers, I don't know how you can even trust MS to begin with. Paid for service since 2002 yet they only provide servers to their games this gen? Yes even Gears 3 and Judgment, pretty much the only exclusives with dedicated servers the 360 got were using Epic's tech and not MS's. Sony been providing servers for several IPs even last gen and that was before anyone was required to pay money to use MP.

I never said every game will. I said every MS game will (like forza, titanfall, gears, halo etc) as well as the fact they are there for other companies to use for free for the time being. Hell MS even let the PC and 360 versions of titanfall use them for free.

Also the only games that ran on dedicated servers i seen form sony were the MMOs like DCUO, Dust etc. and all MMOs require dedicated servers to run. Same with defiance last gen which used trion's servers. Also there is a big difference in quality. the servers that ran those games were crap. Even epic's servers for gears were crap with bullet sponging, teleporting, etc. This gen we haven't seen those problems yet. BF4 servers are crap. P2P CoD plays better and thats sad. Titanfall plays about as good as you can get. Forza is the same. I didn't see sony use dedicated servers for KZ 2 or 3, or TLOU, or anything. Not like sony has a large online shooter catalog. Even KZ SF doesn't have them or GT6. Last gen, servers were an exception to the norm and nice bonus. This gen they should be a standard and anyone not using them, is just money hungry (i'm looking at you activision)

#30 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

To everyone saying XBL is "smoother" what do you mean? Seems you're just blowing hot air just because XBL was better last gen. Sorry, trends change. You'd think PS+ has laggy gameplay and XBL has butter smooth gameplay or something, this isn't the case. Just smoke and mirrors from MS and their shills. If XBL is smoother, give a direct example of how.

KZ:SF runs P2P and is limited by the hosts connection and their console draws resources to be host, where as titanfall and forza are on dedicated servers with bandwidth that can't be matched by anyone's home network as well as using the servers CPU to run game and not local xbox resources. People are getting pings with titanfall in the single digits, something not possible on P2P connections and they get the full bandwidth of their internet, not diminished by the hosts internet

#31 Edited by EducatingU_PCMR (475 posts) -

Has anyone ever really tested both networks in terms of gaming performance to see if the claim that M$ is better in this department is true?

Or it's just myths stemming from the 360 days?

Anyway, whoever pays for XBL is an idiot.

#32 Posted by hoyalawya (330 posts) -

Has anyone ever really tested both networks in terms of gaming performance to see if the claim that M$ is better in this department is true?

Or are they just myths stemming from the 360 days?

Anyway, whoever pays for XBL is an idiot.

I have been playing Forza and Titanfall. The online performance is smooth. In comparison, Plants versus Zombies which presumably uses P2P lag very often especially in garden ops. Battlefield 4 is hit and miss.

My company uses Office 365 and Azure SQL Database. Those are services run out of the same datacenters as Xbox Live Compute. Our users have not complained about lag when using any of the cloud services - e.g., Outlook/Exchange for mail, Lync for chat/voip, and SharePoint.

#33 Posted by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

@darkangel115: I play Killzone often and never run into problems. What you're explaining doesn't translate into benefits in the real world. In TitanFall you can't even have private matches...

#34 Edited by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

@hoyalawya: I play Killzone and Battlefield 4 on PS4 with no problems. XBL has no real world online performance advantage. An invisible advantage isn't more important than free games in my book.

#35 Posted by EducatingU_PCMR (475 posts) -

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

Has anyone ever really tested both networks in terms of gaming performance to see if the claim that M$ is better in this department is true?

Or are they just myths stemming from the 360 days?

Anyway, whoever pays for XBL is an idiot.

I have been playing Forza and Titanfall. The online performance is smooth. In comparison, Plants versus Zombies which presumably uses P2P lag very often especially in garden ops. Battlefield 4 is hit and miss.

My company uses Office 365 and Azure SQL Database. Those are services run out of the same datacenters as Xbox Live Compute. Our users have not complained about lag when using any of the cloud services - e.g., Outlook/Exchange for mail, Lync for chat/voip, and SharePoint.

Another thing to consider is if the XO games not using p2p are running off of M$ servers or not?

I wonder if BF4 servers for XO are running from the MS Azure platform or not. If they're just using EA/third party servers then whatever advantage you might perceive is probably just placebo.

#36 Edited by DaBrainz (7604 posts) -

XLive is nothing special but I haven't used PS+ yet.

#37 Edited by jsmoke03 (12487 posts) -

@Suppaman100 said:

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

can someone explain to me how xbox live is still better?

if we compare 360 to ps3, yes xbox live has more features.

ps4 and xbox1.....i see no difference in the xbox live service. ps4 has every feature that xbox live has....so please tell me why. dont tell me servers because first party exclusives on playstation platform have dedicated servers from what i remembered

#38 Edited by hoyalawya (330 posts) -

@hoyalawya said:

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

Has anyone ever really tested both networks in terms of gaming performance to see if the claim that M$ is better in this department is true?

Or are they just myths stemming from the 360 days?

Anyway, whoever pays for XBL is an idiot.

I have been playing Forza and Titanfall. The online performance is smooth. In comparison, Plants versus Zombies which presumably uses P2P lag very often especially in garden ops. Battlefield 4 is hit and miss.

My company uses Office 365 and Azure SQL Database. Those are services run out of the same datacenters as Xbox Live Compute. Our users have not complained about lag when using any of the cloud services - e.g., Outlook/Exchange for mail, Lync for chat/voip, and SharePoint.

Another thing to consider is if the XO games not using p2p are running off of M$ servers or not?

I wonder if BF4 servers for XO are running from the MS Azure platform or not. If they're just using EA/third party servers then whatever advantage you might perceive is probably just placebo.

BF4 servers, I think, are dedicated servers leased by EA. I don't think they have the "cloud" ability to scale up and down automatically. Also, Azure allows live migration of active connections within the same datacenter and between datacenters. This means that the servers can undergo maintenance (e.g., netcode update) without kicking off the users. During the Titanfall beta test, Respawn & MS tested live migration of users from the West Europe datacenter (Ireland) to the Eastern US datacenter (Virginia) without anyone noticing.

P.S., I got the info from the Xbox One (Major Nelson) audio podcasts.

#39 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

@darkangel115: I play Killzone often and never run into problems. What you're explaining doesn't translate into benefits in the real world. In TitanFall you can't even have private matches...

If you can't notice the difference in P2P vs a good dedicated server IDK what to tell you. KZ is kinda slow paced though, but still its noticeable. I played during the free weekend and bullet sponges, host migrations and hit markers were way to common. way worse then CoD or BF4. If you got to play KZ on a dedicated server that wasn't trash like EAs you'd see the difference.

#40 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (1835 posts) -

@jsmoke03 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@Suppaman100 said:

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

can someone explain to me how xbox live is still better?

if we compare 360 to ps3, yes xbox live has more features.

ps4 and xbox1.....i see no difference in the xbox live service. ps4 has every feature that xbox live has....so please tell me why. dont tell me servers because first party exclusives on playstation platform have dedicated servers from what i remembered

You can´t play against bad players in Xbox One but you can do that in PS4 version.

It has online cloud always on. So even if you not playing its still online and plays against others. Also AI cloud improves a lot, it look how you play and then it will play against you.

Also Reputation system. You playing against best players, not against random people.

If you own Xbox One then you know what im talking about. There are other features too.

Also, you can edit your gameplay clip, change and do crazy stuff while with PS4 you can just record small clip and upload. No edit and no crazy stuff.

Also, BAN rage quiters. Done. Cheaters and team killers are also removed from game, and also ignored.

In short:

PS4 version random vs random players

Xbox One version: good vs good players, bad vs bad players.

#41 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -
@jsmoke03 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@Suppaman100 said:

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

can someone explain to me how xbox live is still better?

if we compare 360 to ps3, yes xbox live has more features.

ps4 and xbox1.....i see no difference in the xbox live service. ps4 has every feature that xbox live has....so please tell me why. dont tell me servers because first party exclusives on playstation platform have dedicated servers from what i remembered

KZ:SF = no dedicated servers

Forza + titanfall = dedicated servers + cloud compute AI

#42 Posted by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

@jsmoke03 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@Suppaman100 said:

There is almost no difference in quality. They're on par, with PS+ bringing the most value.

So yes PS+ is better.

If you playing online games then PS+ is losing against Xbox Live.

can someone explain to me how xbox live is still better?

if we compare 360 to ps3, yes xbox live has more features.

ps4 and xbox1.....i see no difference in the xbox live service. ps4 has every feature that xbox live has....so please tell me why. dont tell me servers because first party exclusives on playstation platform have dedicated servers from what i remembered

You can´t play against bad players in Xbox One but you can do that in PS4 version.

It has online cloud always on. So even if you not playing its still online and plays against others. Also AI cloud improves a lot, it look how you play and then it will play against you.

Also Reputation system. You playing against best players, not against random people.

If you own Xbox One then you know what im talking about. There are other features too.

Also, you can edit your gameplay clip, change and do crazy stuff while with PS4 you can just record small clip and upload. No edit and no crazy stuff.

Also, BAN rage quiters. Done. Cheaters and team killers are also removed from game, and also ignored.

In short:

PS4 version random vs random players

Xbox One version: good vs good players, bad vs bad players.

Also for some reason nobody ever mentions the full profile back-up. on PS4 you get 1GB of storage and have to manually sync trophies and back up save files. Lots of people have complained about loss of save files on the PS4 already. on XBL every save file, all your game data, and all you customization are saved on XBL as well as your videos. If you go to a friends house and log in, its like your xbox with your home screen and your game files. any game you play on their system loads up like yours with all your options and data. You get a cool clip and say xbox record that and it stores online so when you get back home, its on your xbox to edit or upload. PSN doesn't offer anything close to that

#43 Posted by handssss (1624 posts) -

@handssss said:

@darkangel115 said:
@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

every game doesn't have servers with MS, they just said every game CAN have servers and its ultimately up to if a dev wants to go along with all of MS's terms and conditions.

And if you really cared about servers, I don't know how you can even trust MS to begin with. Paid for service since 2002 yet they only provide servers to their games this gen? Yes even Gears 3 and Judgment, pretty much the only exclusives with dedicated servers the 360 got were using Epic's tech and not MS's. Sony been providing servers for several IPs even last gen and that was before anyone was required to pay money to use MP.

I never said every game will. I said every MS game will (like forza, titanfall, gears, halo etc) as well as the fact they are there for other companies to use for free for the time being. Hell MS even let the PC and 360 versions of titanfall use them for free.

Also the only games that ran on dedicated servers i seen form sony were the MMOs like DCUO, Dust etc. and all MMOs require dedicated servers to run. Same with defiance last gen which used trion's servers. Also there is a big difference in quality. the servers that that ran those games were crap. Even epic's servers for gears were crap with bullet sponging, teleporting, etc. This gen we haven't seen those problems yet. BF4 servers are crap. P2P CoD plays better and thats sad. Titanfall plays about as good as you can get. Forza is the same. I didn't see sony use dedicated servers for KZ 2 or 3, or TLOU, or anything. Not like sony has a large online shooter catalog. Even KZ SF doesn't have them or GT6. Last gen, servers were an exception to the norm and nice bonus. This gen they should be a standard and anyone not using them, is just money hungry (i'm looking at you activision)

Titanfall is just MS desperate to get an edge which is why they paid EA lods e mone to ensure ps3/ps4 don't get it. It's likely the ONLY reason why servers don't cost any, though I had never said payment was the reason why some companies might not use the servers. MS wants everyone to use their servers and they'll likely make costs low. The issue is giving MS control. Will be interesting to see what happens with the 2nd game as not even Vince Zampella wanted those systems to be excluded, yet they probably do find not having to worry about server costs ideal. Gears... I'd love to try it, but I'm done with that franchise. It wasn't even the lag, it was the direction they kept trying to bring the series after the 2nd game. Epic (likely guided by MS) ran the series into the ground and then all the top execs bailed the flaming heap and all that was left was a smoldering turd.

Pretty sure there were several sony first party games with servers. I'll give you I never played them because I could of cared less, but I believe it was a big deal when they were shutting some offline like Gran Turismo 5's. This gen just started and we hardly have any games to go by. There were just as easily as many as the 2 games you can provide for the cloud case that ran without noticeable large lag problems in the entirety of last gen.

You claim these companies lied about having dedicated servers, yet that's not quite accurate. You're right, they aren't true dedicated servers which needs to change this gen. "hybrid" systems don't cut it, especially for COD. I'd love to see it dethroned, but it's just not happening soon enough.

#44 Posted by hoyalawya (330 posts) -
#45 Posted by lundy86_4 (42650 posts) -

As far as value, sure. As far as online functionality, no.

Simplest way to put it.

#46 Posted by CrashNBurn281 (385 posts) -
#47 Edited by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

@crashnburn281: That article went completely by past merits and it didn't even discuss the free games advantage.

#48 Edited by Sagemode87 (783 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Not really, they're easily on par with PS4 online actually being better at launch. Xbox One had flawed party chat, remember. PS4 performance online is on par with XBL in real world everyday gaming but far ahead in terms of value. No way to spin it.

#49 Edited by darkangel115 (1403 posts) -

@handssss said:

@darkangel115 said:

@handssss said:

@darkangel115 said:
@Snugenz said:

Havn't used the XBL on the Xbone yet so can't compare but PSN is much better with the PS4.

really? because i don't see it. I'd have to say its worse becuase the free games on PS3 are much better. I mean its expected since the PS4 is so new, but online play is the same PSN its always been. BF uses crappy EA servers, CoD lied, Killzone Lied, both are P2P. Infamous coming out has no MP, The order has no MP. Online isn't even being used really unless your playing KZ, BF4 or CoD and all 3 are P2P. At least with XBL you know every MS game will have dedicated servers. Forza, titanfall both run on servers and the difference is day and night from P2P. and they are good servers, not the EA or Ubisoft crap servers. halo will run on dedicated servers as well as gears, and its open for other companies to use them if they choose. Hopefully they take advantage of that. If activision releases another CoD not using 100% dedicated servers, they can kiss my business goodbye. Not going back to that crap after playing titanfall

every game doesn't have servers with MS, they just said every game CAN have servers and its ultimately up to if a dev wants to go along with all of MS's terms and conditions.

And if you really cared about servers, I don't know how you can even trust MS to begin with. Paid for service since 2002 yet they only provide servers to their games this gen? Yes even Gears 3 and Judgment, pretty much the only exclusives with dedicated servers the 360 got were using Epic's tech and not MS's. Sony been providing servers for several IPs even last gen and that was before anyone was required to pay money to use MP.

I never said every game will. I said every MS game will (like forza, titanfall, gears, halo etc) as well as the fact they are there for other companies to use for free for the time being. Hell MS even let the PC and 360 versions of titanfall use them for free.

Also the only games that ran on dedicated servers i seen form sony were the MMOs like DCUO, Dust etc. and all MMOs require dedicated servers to run. Same with defiance last gen which used trion's servers. Also there is a big difference in quality. the servers that that ran those games were crap. Even epic's servers for gears were crap with bullet sponging, teleporting, etc. This gen we haven't seen those problems yet. BF4 servers are crap. P2P CoD plays better and thats sad. Titanfall plays about as good as you can get. Forza is the same. I didn't see sony use dedicated servers for KZ 2 or 3, or TLOU, or anything. Not like sony has a large online shooter catalog. Even KZ SF doesn't have them or GT6. Last gen, servers were an exception to the norm and nice bonus. This gen they should be a standard and anyone not using them, is just money hungry (i'm looking at you activision)

Titanfall is just MS desperate to get an edge which is why they paid EA lods e mone to ensure ps3/ps4 don't get it. It's likely the ONLY reason why servers don't cost any, though I had never said payment was the reason why some companies might not use the servers. MS wants everyone to use their servers and they'll likely make costs low. The issue is giving MS control. Will be interesting to see what happens with the 2nd game as not even Vince Zampella wanted those systems to be excluded, yet they probably do find not having to worry about server costs ideal. Gears... I'd love to try it, but I'm done with that franchise. It wasn't even the lag, it was the direction they kept trying to bring the series after the 2nd game. Epic (likely guided by MS) ran the series into the ground and then all the top execs bailed the flaming heap and all that was left was a smoldering turd.

Pretty sure there were several sony first party games with servers. I'll give you I never played them because I could of cared less, but I believe it was a big deal when they were shutting some offline like Gran Turismo 5's. This gen just started and we hardly have any games to go by. There were just as easily as many as the 2 games you can provide for the cloud case that ran without noticeable large lag problems in the entirety of last gen.

You claim these companies lied about having dedicated servers, yet that's not quite accurate. You're right, they aren't true dedicated servers which needs to change this gen. "hybrid" systems don't cut it, especially for COD. I'd love to see it dethroned, but it's just not happening soon enough.

I wouldn't say its a desperate to get an edge. Thats just fanboys wars. What titanfall is, is MS making sure they can boast their games that sony doesn't have as an advantage. Which is typical marketing. Its all marketing. MS paid to have a big game they can market for their new console to sell. and it worked. Also it wasn't going to launch on PS4/PS3 the same time as Xbox no matter what. that was well established before MS backed the dump truck of money at EAs door. The game was being developed for xbox 1st before they could only focus on one system first due to a small team and sony gave them the proverbial middle finger, while MS threw servers and free advertising at them. for respawn the choice on where to start was easy, and once the game picked up steam and hype, MS paid to ensure sony didn't get it. It was a smart business move, not a desperate attempt to get an edge. And its not like sony hasn't done the same before as well. As far as servers not costing anything

http://www.gamesradar.com/microsoft-offers-free-dedicated-servers-all-xbox-one-titles/

MS is offering them to everyone for free. and why wouldn't they? they have 300k of them, might as well put them to good use right?

This is a big step in the right direction of gaming. MS is pushing for better user experience, especially with online and social play. That is what MS started 10+ years ago when they launched XBL, its why most gamers who play a lot online will choose MS over Sony consoles regardless of a GPU or a resolution. For the money MS put in XBL, they could have sunk that into putting twin titans into every xbox one, built 100 million of them, and still spent less money doing so. Sony on the other hand, just rents servers form amazon as needed and aren't trying tp provide anyone with an exceptional online experience, they are just doing enough to say, yeah you can do that on PS as well. They can't catch up to what MS is doing.

#50 Posted by kbanna (665 posts) -

Xbox Live pretty much dominated Sony the last two generations, but it looks like Sony has made a huge comeback with PS+. PS+ gives tons of value for the money, although it does suck that you have to pay to play online. Xbox now offers this Xbox Gold thing where you get games you played a long time ago for free which I guess is cool. Has Xbox Live been dethroned though?

A) Games with gold is slightly different because you get to keep the games if your subscription runs out.

B) There is no way that PS+ is a better business model then live and it does not make even close to the money live brings in for MS.

Its overall value to the consumer is debatable, but the fact that Sony decided to charge this gen was based solely on MS Live model and how much it meant to XBOX bottom line last gen.