Xbox live price going up !

[Shifty Geezer]

And in the end that means you're left at the mercy of what the game you're playing supports - if it has the join a friend option that usually makes life much easier.

Except all too often it doesn't work. eg. Friend's on a Warhawk server I'm rank limited out of; friend's in a game in Uncharted 2 that it says I cannot join without giving reason; join a Warhawk game only to be booted and and told "you cannot join that game" without any explanation why; same with Fat Princess; playing Booty only to be kicked because, "you were signed out of PSN," only I wasn't; don't receive Borderlands invites on my main account, and can't issue them...

I guess I've been lucky with the games I've played so far.

I've got to the point where I think my main PSN account may be bugged, because my US account has far less issues.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think Home was supposed to be the value add to draw people to PSN, but it didn't work. When I want to play a game with my friends, I want it to be as quick and efficient as possible to set up. I dont want to bother loading up, or doing anything through a 3D universe. They should have have improved the basic features of PSN before they bothered with Home. Some of the game lobby ideas were kind of neat. Doesn't Warhawk have some kind of strategy table in the game lobby? The thing is, most of the time that I want to play game X with my friends, they're already playing something else and then they jump straight into the next game. Home seems like an unnecessary step in the middle.

 

[Gradthrawn]

The beeping wasn't consistent. It seemed to happen randomly, but frequently. Does it beep after you talk if it's on mute? Maybe the mic was picking up noise from the ear piece and causing it to beep, because I really wasn't talking while playing Killzone2, since I didn't know anyone that was playing. Patsu's description seems more likely.

Yeah, that sounds like the mic mute beep (infrequent enough to almost sound random if you're not paying close attention to it, but frequent enough for you to notice). And I don't think I've ever actually ran into the situation patsu mentioned on PSN with the official headset. If its on mute, it always beeps, whether you're talking or not.

I can pay the extra for Live. I just think it would suck if it kept creeping up. If it was $100 a year, that's a good chunk of money. How high will it go before it stops?

$100 is a good chunk, and maybe they'd have to further increase the value proposition at that point. Perhaps offering PSN+ like discount services on stuff you didn't know you wanted razz along with the normal Gold features. How much is too much (with the current feature set) is an interesting question. Perhaps deserving of a separate thread and pole.

 

[patsu]

I think Home was supposed to be the value add to draw people to PSN, but it didn't work. When I want to play a game with my friends, I want it to be as quick and efficient as possible to set up. I dont want to bother loading up, or doing anything through a 3D universe. They should have have improved the basic features of PSN before they bothered with Home. Some of the game lobby ideas were kind of neat. Doesn't Warhawk have some kind of strategy table in the game lobby? The thing is, most of the time that I want to play game X with my friends, they're already playing something else and then they jump straight into the next game. Home seems like an unnecessary step in the middle.

Home comes under the umbrella of user generated content, like LittleBigPlanet, Unreal Tournament mods, Modnation Racers, and hopefully more to come (EA Create ?).

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
In your follow up post, you mentioned convenience as a key feature. In my experience, it's always been the case in the US of A that if you do a bit more work, you can get a better deal (in this case, free). Since you prefer convenience over saving, you have already chosen to stay on XBL from day one. Even if Sony releases a cross game chat tomorrow, you will always be able to find other reasons to stay on XBL (e.g., We're already used to how 360 is set up; my friends can't figure out how to use PSN cross game chat).
...

It's more than convenience. I will pay for quality rather than use something crappy just because its free. Sure, if Live didn't exist, I might think PSN was ok, but it doesn't and relatively PSN just isn't very good. Sure, Live lends me some convenience, but a lot of times things are more convenient because they are better designed, more usable, more feature filled. I think it's a bit of a stretch to make any assumptions about whether I prefer convenience over saving just because I pay for Xbox Live.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

As far as Borderlands goes and performance issues (rather than features), I've never had any problems at all with Borderlands on Live and I've played that game (and all their DLC) into the ground time and time again.

No problem with invites sending or receiving, joining parties, viewing friend's status in the game, etc..

It works flawlessly for me on Live.

 

[Alkohallick]

It's more than convenience. I will pay for quality rather than use something crappy just because its free. Sure, if Live didn't exist, I might think PSN was ok, but it doesn't and relatively PSN just isn't very good. Sure, Live lends me some convenience, but a lot of times things are more convenient because they are better designed, more usable, more feature filled. I think it's a bit of a stretch to make any assumptions about whether I prefer convenience over saving just because I pay for Xbox Live.

But to be fair PSN's free service does provide you with more than XBL's free service. Thats how I see it. I agree the the services gained with paid membership on XBL trump PSN and PSN+ for that matter but again before I knew anything about the "extra" stuff w XBL gold it just looked like a cash grab at first----IMO

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But to be fair PSN's free service does provide you with more than XBL's free service. Thats how I see it.

The problem with PSN is they don't address the higher level of service. Back before PSN+, we speculated that all our desired features would be in a paid-for package. Turns it that PSN+ was just a content package, and there is no introduction of the desired services in any form. This if you want the easier online friend experience, a paid-for Live! experience is the only one available, which probably helps MS justify upping the price.

 

[patsu]

It's more than convenience. I will pay for quality rather than use something crappy just because its free. Sure, if Live didn't exist, I might think PSN was ok, but it doesn't and relatively PSN just isn't very good. Sure, Live lends me some convenience, but a lot of times things are more convenient because they are better designed, more usable, more feature filled. I think it's a bit of a stretch to make any assumptions about whether I prefer convenience over saving just because I pay for Xbox Live.

Sure, but there are high quality services on PSN also, some not available on XBL, many lower than XBL's standardized quality. It's the integratedness (which translates into convenience/smooth usage), and consistency in quallity that differentiate XBL from PSN. Sony simply invested more on the individual games, and made PSN open. Pick your poison.

Safe for the missing KZ2 party system, I actually am very happy with PSN online gaming in general. The good games are well supported, or even updated frequently.

Over time though, I think they have to match web online experiences throughout, or their growth will be stunted. Those are open and free too, and have lower game price. The consumers are even more fickle there. If Sony can't integrate PS Move, PSN, portable gaming, and "Everything PS3 Does" in a user friendly package, then heh heh.

 

[Alkohallick]

The problem with PSN is they don't address the higher level of service. Back before PSN+, we speculated that all our desired features would be in a paid-for package. Turns it that PSN+ was just a content package, and there is no introduction of the desired services in any form. This if you want the easier online friend experience, a paid-for Live! experience is the only one available, which probably helps MS justify upping the price.

Just because the service doesn't match XBL doesn't mean every user perceives it as trash. It does what I need it to do to suit my multiplayer needs. The problems you mention I haven't come across(or should i say to the extent that you claim). As a free service, im fine w PSN

 

[Arwin]

Steam is also an interesting thing here. What if I bought Portal 2 on PSN and I could use all of Steams features, including playing the game without additional cost on PC or Mac, and co-op WITH people on PC or Mac? Certainly an interesting experiment. It's still hard to judge what to make of it, but quite a while ago Sony was already talking about making PSN a more open platform that others could connect to, and now Steam may end up being a very interesting one.

Of course, Microsoft has GFWL to compete across platforms, but it'll be interesting.

 

[Billy Idol]

I used to play a lot Xbox Live during my Gears of War time, typically with a bunch of friends.

I quited Xbox Live due to Gears 2 online being not the game I hoped for and typically play my online games now on PS3, if I play online (for instance UC2).
I will wait for Gears 3 to judge if I am Live again or not...

But, I really cannot understand why people here argue that online play on Xbox Live is not a much (much, maybe even another much!?) better experience than online play on PSN - especially if you want to team up with someone.

The reason is simple: good quality voice chat+party chat, independent of the game I am playing - this is what is missing on PSN, some of this...since day one!

There are occasionally games (like UC2) which have acceptable voice chat quality, but still, sometimes bringing people together to play is a pain (- and please don't argue with text chat feature...this is ridiculous, like sending messages with a carrier pigeon!)

And this

This is my experience with PSN

I tried to play FIFA 10 online with my brother. We were both online and sending text messages to each other. He didn't know how to get to the correct menu option for us to play together, and didn't know how the lobby system worked. Solution? Call my brother on the phone and explain how to do it, and then stay on the phone until we managed to get into a game together. Game ends, call him back up and do it again.

Playing Little Big Planet with RobertR1 while chatting on Xbox Live. It was the easiest way for us to get organized, and then once we were in, why switch to chatting on PS3?

I also had huge problems with voice chat playing Killzone 2. I have the official PS3 headset, but there were a few things I couldn't figure out. One, it seemed I'd get beeping on the mic all the time, and it pissed me off. I'm not sure if it beeped every time people finished talking, or every time I finished talking, but it seemed to beep a lot. The other problem was with having non-standard headsets, the voice chat quality and volume varied far too much for each player. Some people sounded like they were yelling while others were quiet as a mouse. I'm sure they weren't configuring their headsets properly. Mine was in that HQ mode, which didn't allow me to change any settings, so I'm assuming Sony would make some reasonable defaults. On Live, the general quality is not amazing, but it's clear and sufficient. Because most people are using the standard headsets, the volume level is far more consistent across players.

is not an exceptional experience, but sadly rather typical for PSN IMO!
And it is really true - if you are used to Xbox Live, the transition to PSN is hard (heck, that is the reason why I am afraid to recommend some of my Xbox only friends going PS3...because of PSN!)

But, there is still something good about PSN....and this is indeed because it is free!
This is the reason I sometimes try the online mode of my new games (it does not cost me something)!
Best example being BF:BC2!! I bought it because of SP, but tried the MP due to curiosity (easy because PSN is free) - and guess what...this is one of my favorite online games ever!!
It is also a big plus when online is free...when you have an online only game...like for instance L4D (or Unreal Tournament 3) - there you don't have much choice about paying Live or not!!

IMO it would be fair, if online gaming is free...and additional features like party chat and co. are payed Gold member services - this would be fair, but I wonder in such a hypothetical world: how much of the Xbox 360 users would actually subscribe to Gold or save the money?!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just because the service doesn't match XBL doesn't mean every user perceives it as trash.

No remark of taste or perception by any individual represents the consensus of all people. Listen to people leaving a cinema after a film and some will say, "that was a great film," and other's will say, "it was rubbish," and self-evidentally, they are personal opinions.

 

[-tkf-]

$60 spread over the course of a year is not very much.

But you pay for a year, not just the days you play, so it is 60$ no matter how you slice it. And the argument you use wasn´t valid when it was used to argue that the PS3 isn´t that much more expensive when we consider the lifespan, especially considering the online part is free

BUT that being said, if 50$ wasn´t a problem when the 360 launched i find it hard to argue that so many years later a price hike isn´t totally unexpected or without reason.

 

[Svensk Viking]

I prefer Starcraft's, or CS's online system any day over Xbox Live's

Every time I play on Live(which I only do during free weekends or after gotten RROD compensation, Halo 3 with "guest" option btw), the matchmaking is ridicilously slow, can't specify what map I want to play(instead being forced into a vote-system) or the game mode, and when I am tired of getting put up with that crap and leave, i get experience loss or whatever it is
I just hate matchmaking, it should die

And I(as long as many others I guess) don't even use the so-called "extras"...Even if you had to pay 15 USD for Live Bronze or something for online play only, I am very sure that Gold subscribers would jump over directly

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Every time I play on Live(which I only do during free weekends or after gotten RROD compensation, Halo 3 with "guest" option btw), the matchmaking is ridicilously slow, can't specify what map I want to play(instead being forced into a vote-system) or the game mode, and when I am tired of getting put up with that crap and leave, i get experience loss or whatever it is
I just hate matchmaking, it should die.

There are faults with other systems too, though. Warhawk let's you pick servers, or create your own, but you won't have anyone to play with. And if you go where the people are, then you end up with the popular vote, only voted for by joining the game instead of by a between-round poll. Uncharted 2 worked fairly well, although you can find expert players in with noobs. But that's more an issue with the games, rather than the underlying infrastructure I think. Some games will benefit from different online matchmaking systems to others. And there's a thread to discuss that stuff here.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... perhaps MS were serious when they said they were going to reinvest in PC Gaming. :|

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Surely with Live on PC and mobile, the intention is to have more subscribers? Are they likely to offer Live! services for free to PC gamers but not mobiles and 360?

 

[AntShaw]

As patsu would put it...maybe they are just charging the extra $10 so they can continue to R&D more value adds, UI updates, and kinect improvements over the next few years.

But seriously...how many Gold subscribers are they? 20 mil a year? Your talking about an extra 200mil (est)revenue each year to do with as they wish. They can pocket it and continue to stay profitable, or do as I suggested above. How many people at gold will seriously not renew or move down to silver over an extra $10 a year? My guess is not very many at all.

 

[joker454]

I don't think so.

Even if PSN offers feature parity (in some area, it already is more interesting than 360), the core 360 gamers will only use it as a reason to get Microsoft to lower its price. They are unlikely to switch for a difference of $10 a year.

As a (ex-)vendor, I know customers always want to shop for a better deal sometimes by using one vendor against the other.

If all the friends I play with jumped ship to psn, then I would have followed suit. It's not about investment in a console, brand loyalty, etc, it's about where your friends are. It's not like we didn't try, we gave psn many chances over the years. And heck most of my friends work for Sony 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties so they all have free and/or cheaply acquired ps3's. But psn was just too damn primitive that we just couldn't stomach it.

Just because the service doesn't match XBL doesn't mean every user perceives it as trash. It does what I need it to do to suit my multiplayer needs. The problems you mention I haven't come across(or should i say to the extent that you claim). As a free service, im fine w PSN

For sure, many psn users never touched a 360, they migrated straight from a ps2. For them I'm sure psn is great. As long as they stay away from live they will never know what they are missing so they will remain content.