HOME Delayed...again


Recommended Posts

Because both of those services are competing? Just because live is older doesn't mean it can't be compared to PS online. Thats like saying "The iPod is way older than the Zune, you can't compare them!"

Comparisons are fine and natural, but some people seem to think PSN has to be better than Live right now, or it's doomed.

That, on a time basis, is daft as you're saying a fledgling service should be better than an experienced service, and we're talking years here spanning over two consoles (Live), not a month or two.

In some cases fledgling services are better than experienced services, but it's quite rare, and even when they're it's usually only in certain areas, and the experienced service still has pro's over it's fresh new rival.

That is true anyway, as as a fledgling service PSN does have some 1UP's over Live, the obvious and biggest to lean on being that the service is and will remain free of charge.

Then under that there is various other opinions that lead to people preferring things about PSN over Live, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparisons are fine and natural, but some people seem to think PSN has to be better than Live right now, or it's doomed.

That, on a time basis, is daft as you're saying a fledgling service should be better than an experienced service, and we're talking years here spanning over two consoles, not a month or two.

In some cases fledgling services are better than experienced services, but it's quite rare, and even when they're it's usually only in certain areas, and the experienced service still has some pro's.

That is true anyway, as as a fledgling service PSN does have some 1UP's over Live, the obvious and biggest to lean on being that the service is and will remain free.

Uhh, the PS2 had PSN though. And Sony had 4 years to improve it to Live standards by the time PS3 came out and now another 18 months on top of it and it still isn't up there.

By no means is PSN fledgling - Sony just neglected it.

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, the PS2 had PSN though. And Sony had 4 years to improve it to Live standards by the time PS3 came out and now another 18 months on top of it and it still isn't up there.

By no means is PSN fledgling - Sony just neglected it.

-Spenser

The PS2 couldn't support a robust online service like the Xbox.

It wasn't built for it, that was Sony's choice. They focused more on saturating the market with games, than really offering great online experiences, and it worked pretty damn well for them as you know.

So I have no idea how they had "4 years" to improve on it, when the platform they were selling couldn't support a competitive service to Live, or even be a playground for ideas and testing.

They were inexperienced going into the PS3 with online, regardless of if neglect was involved with the PS2.

MS also have an upper hand as a software developer, Sony as a hardware - And I think we can all pretty much agree on that one this generation ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.