PSN vs Nintendo WFC vs XBox Live

[Deleted User]

Which one is better for speed, reliability, graphics, access and general playability (no lag)

Personally, I like WFC because it's cheap and free.

 

[mameks]

Which one is better for speed, reliability, graphics, access and general playability (no lag)

Personally, I like WFC because it's cheap and free.

Anyways. Hate xbox live, as you have to pay >.>
WFC's awesome, because it's free, and DS games are awesome online. (For the most part)
And I don't have a PS3, so I dunno about it :3

 

[Deadmon]

PSN. It's WFC, but just...better.

 

[impizkit]

Im a PSN guy. Im surprised it is ahead at this point. I wont pay for online access and wii access sux.

 

[Satangel]

Wrong forum, should be in General Discussions.

Also, WFC should lose this big time, those annoying FC's just manage to fuck up every online experience for me.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

PSN. I have compared Live and PSN side by side with the same online games and I have seen no difference. There is a certain psychological term for the reason why Xbots think Live has less lag and disconnect issues, but I can't remember it right now. And the rest of the "extras" aren't worth the $60 a year price tag.

 

[Spikey]

Nintendo WFC has the best graphics.

 

[Fudge]

I love Xbox LIVE. Even though you have to pay to play online, its well worth it. There's always something going on in the community and it just flows and works so well. And Achievements. I love Achievements

 

[J-Mirage]

Obviously, XBOX Live will won. Is the best service, the only bad thing is you must pay money.

 

[Forstride]

Xbox Live gets my vote. I don't care about the cost, as it's not as bankrupting as everyone always says it is. Most of my friends have 360s, and it's great being able to play with no lag, great connectivity (Depending on the game), and of course all the other features.

WFC is in second for me, because I don't have/have ever had a PS3, so I can't judge it. WFC is too simplistic, but it gets the job done for most games (Despite most WFC games only having leaderboards as their WFC feature). Friend codes are annoying, but I usually don't add a ton of people, so it's not THAT bad for me.

 

[ThePowerOutage]

PSN is the best bit of Live and the best bits of WFC pu together.
Plus it's on the best console

 

[Hells Malice]

XBL obviously wins.
It runs better, has a much bigger population, and is just overall better.
I costs basically nothing. The fee of, what, $60 a year? People are kidding themselves if they don't think that's worth a much better service. Actually, i think a 12 month card comes with a month free...so $60 every 13 months? If you can't afford that, you probably can't afford a console or any games for one to begin with. Even when I was 13 I could buy XBL easy.

PSN is alright. Easy enough to navigate, and they have a decent selection of games, but the community is tiny in comparison, and isn't as smooth as XBL. Not to mention no one uses a god damn mic.
The download speeds are also really pathetic sometimes. I've downloaded games for my PSP that have taken hours, and they're only maybe 200-500mb large.
The amount of games is nice, but most are just downloads of PSP games, and PS1 games.

WFC is a joke, but it's alright sometimes.

 

[Deleted User]

Xbox live is the best of all 3, less than 5 dollars a month isn't that expensive when you think about it.

Considering the fact you could buy a yearly card for about 50 US online, thats about $4.10, less than lunch.

 

[Goli]

I love Xbox LIVE. Even though you have to pay to play online, its well worth it. There's always something going on in the community and it just flows and works so well. And Achievements. I love Achievements

PS3s have trophies

.

QUOTE(Juanmatron @ Dec 10 2010, 06:36 PM) Obviously, XBOX Live will won. Is the best service, the only bad thing is you must pay money.

Win*

I prefer PSN even though I've only experienced it on PSP I really like not having to use Friend Codes, they don't bother me that much however since I'm kinda used to inputting them.
If you didn't have to pay for Live it'd be my favourite though.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

I don't know why people complain about Xbox Live prices. If you go out for a coffee at starbucks, once a month, don't do it for a month, and you already got one month down. It's actually really cheap if you think about it.

I've preferred XBL. The whole interface, no lag issues, reliability, just makes the 4-5bucks a month worth it.

 

[Mike&Ike]

Although Live has better features, I'll go with PSN because I have friends to play with on there. WFC kinda sucks to me.

 

[Zooleot]

1.PSN: Fun plus it's free.
2.WFC: Free also and decent only downside is friend codes

3.XBL:Crappy shitty servers and whiny 10yr olds plus $60 a month HELL NO.

 

[CarbonX13]

PlayStation Network is a standard online system. It's free, it works, it's great. Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection has absolutely no interface, limited connectivity, and a lack of any user-generated profiles to allow friends to add each other for every game under a certain name, and instead makes everyone use randomly generated codes based per game. Not very good. Xbox Live Gold does some more than PlayStation Network in areas, but does cost you $60 a year. Based on how important those features are to you, the choice really should fall between PSN and XBL. I cast a PlayStation Network vote.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

3.XBL:Crappy shitty servers and whiny 10yr olds

That shouldn't even be a reason, as the Xbox servers have better stability than PSN's, and you can find 10yr olds on PSN as well...

 

[MelodieOctavia]

3.XBL:Crappy shitty servers and whiny 10yr olds

That shouldn't even be a reason, as the Xbox servers have better stability than PSN's, and you can find 10yr olds on PSN as well...

lol nope.