Recommended Posts

PSN has a grief feature.

That's pretty cool. :)

I never noticed that back when...then again I got pretty upset when Sony removed me from the G.A.P. without ever sending me my welcome kit, and the reason why was because I questioned an older members posting about something weird. I wasn't rude, didn't curse...just pointed out that something was odd in what they'd stated. After that I just used it for occasional Blu-Rays. I don't even really do that anymore since I picked up my Sony Blu-Ray 3D Home Theater system...now it just sits there looking lonely most of the time :(

xbox live is a necessity if you want to own an xbox and use it for anything at all. Since my gold sub expired, I haven't even turned my xbox on, and until I have the spare $15 for another month it'll stay off.

That's just how xbox is.

Funny, I can play ME3, GoW and all my other games without gold. Still I have gold because it's cheap and I want to mp sometimes.

Interesting article I think that MS should offer more for their Gold subscribers. To be honest, the only reason I keep my Gold sub is to play online, I don't find myself using the other features. Maybe I should start.

It seems MS has done a rather good job at convincing people that the Gold service is something they should pay for. I bought it twice when it was offered to me on the Dash for $2 and I hardly used it.

The PS+ service is very good value for money.

Thinking about it though. I've never paid the RRP for it. I've always taken up the offers on the dashboard or when they have codes for a discounted price on online retailers. I don't feel so bad then. :p

I don't have either Plus or Gold anymore. I tend to only use a few features of the consoles nowadays (gaming, browser, streaming) which is why i've found it difficult to justify paying for Gold since my sub expired last year. Especially as i only used it for online gaming and as I tend to only play MP a handful of times a year i'm quite happy with the free offerings i can get on the PS3. If MS has a middle tier for people who only want to play online then i think i would be more interested.

Next Gen consoles are coming soon. It took Sony all that time to get something that is slightly better than Live.

And MS just let them, when they too could have been upgrading their service to be a better value, which I think is the actual overall point of the article. MS has a very good service with Live, which I am actually a Live founder (even though I forget my password for DirtyLarry and I think I lost the name which is a whole other story) and have had it since the first XBox, but more and more it is starting to look like you get less and less for the money.

Again, I think that is the point of it all, not to say which is ultimately the better service, as I said in my first post I really do not think you can even compare the two as they are pretty fundamentally different, but to say maybe MS needs to start offering some more.

Then again if I was MS, and people eat Live up like candy, I doubt I would offer more either.

My own biggest gripe with Live was requiring it for MP gaming. That just seems wrong to me. Some people are on hard times and cannot buy a lot of games. I know a few. They buy a game like Battlefield 3, are really looking forward to it, and they are stuck playing the SP because they also cannot afford Live. A younger cousin in my family faces that exact dillema.

My only problem with PSN is it seems like they cap my download speed to roughly 75-80% of what my connection speed is - and it's been like that since I've owned a PS3 when my connection was a lot slower. I even have NAT 1 set up on the PS3 and still have the problem. For instance, last month, it took me 50 minutes to download the same demo on PS3 that took around 35 minutes on Xbox Live. I haven't downloaded enough on my Vita to see if it is the same way, but the PSP had an equally slow download speed for me.

Otherwise, it basically comes down that I have a couple friends with a PS3, but far more with an Xbox, so it usually gets picked as the console I buy games for. Does Plus even have a party system yet or was that scrapped/still in planning? It's probably the best feature of Xbox live for my friends and I, and we've really been spoiled by it.

My own biggest gripe with Live was requiring it for MP gaming. That just seems wrong to me. Some people are on hard times and cannot buy a lot of games. I know a few. They buy a game like Battlefield 3, are really looking forward to it, and they are stuck playing the SP because they also cannot afford Live. A younger cousin in my family faces that exact dillema.

If they can afford a 360, Battlefield 3, and a constant Internet connection times can't be that tough. But I wish multiplayer games where free to play over xbox silver, and I wish that PSN+ gave you some other option with the games it gives you if you stop paying for + instead of not being able to play them again.

Also PSN need to do something about the speeds, I don't connect mine to the net for this reason. System and game updates are a joke compared to Microsoft infostructure.

Next Gen consoles are coming soon. It took Sony all that time to get something that is slightly better than Live.

Microsoft had a little bit of a lead-in though with LIVE on Xbox. I have no doubt PSN/LIVE will be neck and neck on next-gen.

One of the other things that just ****ed me off about Gold is the damn ads and its getting worse and worse. So, I'm paying for MP, I'm paying to stream from other places where I already pay a sub, AND I'm being bombed with ads? Not cool.

At least Xbox live wasn't compromised numerous times exposing millions of users confidential data. That's a little more important to me than giving me a bunch of "free" games that I wouldn't play anyway.

If they can afford a 360, Battlefield 3, and a constant Internet connection times can't be that tough. But I wish multiplayer games where free to play over xbox silver, and I wish that PSN+ gave you some other option with the games it gives you if you stop paying for + instead of not being able to play them again.

Also PSN need to do something about the speeds, I don't connect mine to the net for this reason. System and game updates are a joke compared to Microsoft infostructure.

Although I did read my post back and I said "buy, " actually Battlefield 3 was a Christmas present from myself and my wife. I was just using it as a real example, as it can indeed happen, even if you think otherwise, I did not think someone would actually have the nerve to question some people hit hard times economically. In fact it was the first new game they owned since last Christmas, other then that, all they can ever get are used games from trade ins. And the 360 was a Christmas present from all of the family 2 years prior to that. So yeah, times can be that tough for some people, but way to pass judgement on someone else's situation without knowing anything about it. Like do you even know that his father lost his job on December 10th, 2 weeks before Christmas? No, you do not.

So 67.2 million (Xbox) vs 63.9 million (PS3) worldwide would be considered equal?

(Figures as of March 2012)

I guess I just considered almost $700,000,000 difference in hardware sales alone to be quite a difference. Also factor in that Xbox has the highest attach rate (titles sold per console) in the industry. So I still state that Xbox is far ahead of the PS3 when it comes to the online gaming aspect...and people do care about security & reliability.

Are you forgetting something??? Xbox released 1 year earlier than PS3... so yes they sell equally.

Infact the difference was higher before and PS3 has caught up to just 3 million now.

Also, don't forget the high failure rate of xbox at initial stage. people bought new one just because old one died.

ive been a PSN+ user for just over a year now. The 1st year i only paid $35 b/c there was some Amazon sale. This year, i used a gift card so i got the service for free. Overall, i think it's worth $35, but not $50. Some would argue that the 'free' games make it worth the cost, but i dont agree. most of the offerings, imo, are not interesting. I'll never play:

  • Bloodrayne Betrayal
  • Outland
  • Ratchet & Clank All 4 One
  • Space Marine
  • Saints Row 2
  • Renegade Ops
  • Pac-Man Championship Edition DX
  • Choplifter
  • Sideway
  • Just Cause 2*
  • Gotham City Impostors*
  • Hard Corps Uprising*
  • Zombie Apocalypse*
  • Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown*
  • (Borderlands will be added in September)

It's just that these games arent interesting to me. Sure, others will play the hell out of them, but they arent for me. Now, other games have been offered, and I've liked them. I especially like the Plus features such as Cloud storage, Beta access and Auto-updates. Those are great features.

As for Xbox Gold, ive never seen the value. $60 a year for features that i should get for free? no thanks.

My only problem with PSN is it seems like they cap my download speed to roughly 75-80% of what my connection speed is - and it's been like that since I've owned a PS3 when my connection was a lot slower. I even have NAT 1 set up on the PS3 and still have the problem. For instance, last month, it took me 50 minutes to download the same demo on PS3 that took around 35 minutes on Xbox Live. I haven't downloaded enough on my Vita to see if it is the same way, but the PSP had an equally slow download speed for me.

unfortunately Vita's wireless speed isnt very good. The "internet connection test" only ever hits 8-10Mbits on my 30Mbit connection. Downloading big games will take hours.

My only problem with PSN is it seems like they cap my download speed to roughly 75-80% of what my connection speed is - and it's been like that since I've owned a PS3 when my connection was a lot slower. I even have NAT 1 set up on the PS3 and still have the problem. For instance, last month, it took me 50 minutes to download the same demo on PS3 that took around 35 minutes on Xbox Live. I haven't downloaded enough on my Vita to see if it is the same way, but the PSP had an equally slow download speed for me.

Otherwise, it basically comes down that I have a couple friends with a PS3, but far more with an Xbox, so it usually gets picked as the console I buy games for. Does Plus even have a party system yet or was that scrapped/still in planning? It's probably the best feature of Xbox live for my friends and I, and we've really been spoiled by it.

You may have made a typo, but NAT 2 is what is required on the PS3 to show all the ports PSN will use for traffic are going to correctly open.

Don't forget that some of these gold features are not avalaible outside of USA. Anyway last time i checked. I cancelled my subscription 1 year and an half ago and back then i did not have access to evertyhing USA had. Might have changed since then tough.

Having a family and being in my mid 30ies it's harder and harder for me to justify paying to play games online after i already paid for the game itself. I bought MoP and will probably seldomly play it for 2-3 months mainly to see old friends again (my account is curently closed). But that probably will be the last online game i pay to play.

I simply can't justify paying for the console, internet access, the actual games and then the online part of the games. Specially since to this day no game provided me a cheaters/exploit free environment. Halo has always been full of cheaters.

  • Like 2

well xbox live vs psn + what do i use?? u may ask i love xbox live and the psn network is crap allways was allways will be.

what do u get with live that psn network doesnt give u well lets check

1.live decated servers for the game your playing psn network doesnt do that

2.live get content that psn user dont

3.well psn users get free old games wgaf

4.the only thing ps3 is good for is u can borrow ur friends games and play them xbox cant

ill take live over psn+ anyday ohh yea last but not lease ps3 hacked xbox ever ding ding ding

i declare live the best and if u look right live 39 for a year on specail ever month just look at the flyers u get at home with all the specials

i never see psn on specail because its sucks... my 2 cents

well xbox live vs psn + what do i use?? u may ask i love xbox live and the psn network is crap allways was allways will be.

what do u get with live that psn network doesnt give u well lets check

1.live decated servers for the game your playing psn network doesnt do that

2.live get content that psn user dont

3.well psn users get free old games wgaf

4.the only thing ps3 is good for is u can borrow ur friends games and play them xbox cant

ill take live over psn+ anyday ohh yea last but not lease ps3 hacked xbox ever ding ding ding

i declare live the best and if u look right live 39 for a year on specail ever month just look at the flyers u get at home with all the specials

i never see psn on specail because its sucks... my 2 cents

That is not true. In fact, the majority if not all PS3 1st party titles run on dedicated servers.

One of the oldest PS3 MP titles (it might even of been the 1st Sony game), Warhawk, famously used clusters of PS3s for their dedicated severs and even let the gamers run their own dedicated servers from their own PS3.

1.jpg

http://www.gamingnex...FullNews&I=5386

You may have made a typo, but NAT 2 is what is required on the PS3 to show all the ports PSN will use for traffic are going to correctly open.

NAT 1 is when the PS3 is hooked directly to the modem without any firewalls of any kind between them. It's "better" than NAT 2 in regards to that no ports are blocked. Regardless, I've run both NAT 1 & 2 but neither make any difference in my slowness on the PSN network.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!