Bolivar's Guide to Online Gaming - Debunking Myths (lol jk)
TLDR: For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - - you can just look at headings to get the point
I. Stability - The PSN is faster, more stable, and more PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers
Okay, this is the biggest myth on the internet that needs to be dispelled - XBox Live is not faster or more stable than PSN. How many times was XBox Live unexpectedly down this year alone? I can only think of once that's happened with PSN (and its free). Furthermore, a MTV multiplayer study found that in fact the PSN is faster than XBox Live.Originally Posted by Iceglow
Even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter what system you play a game on. Nearly every multiplayer game on ps3/360 uses P2P, not servers. This mean your connection speed and stability depends on the host of the game, not what network you're using. The only game on 360 I can think of that doesn't are the Battlefield games, but those servers are owned and operated by EA, and they use the same ones on all platforms.
At the same time, plenty of PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers whereas I can't think of a single 360 game that does. Resistance 1 & 2, Killzone 2, Warhawk, SOCOM, and MAG all use dedicated servers, meaning your experience will always be fast and stable no matter how you're playing them.
II. Wireless - It works...
This simply isn't true. I've been using Wireless for over a year now and there hasn't been a noticeable difference from playing with ethernet. I use a decent $50USD one that's usually simultaneously used by 2 laptops while a 3rd laptops downloads. Even before that, I used a crappy one provided by the landlord, shared with 5 rooms in our apartment as well as our own. Even then, there was no noticeable difference from playing wired.Originally Posted by Iceglow
III. The difference between XBL and PSN is now nominal; PS3 games have richer and more varied multiplayer experiences.
Over the last 3 years, Sony has been slowly chipping away at the differences in services provided between the two, and the only features remaining are a universal Party System and Cross Game (Voice) Chat. But if you can hop into games with friends on the PSN just as easily, what's the significant advantage XBox Live has? The only game that's been a hassle for me is Battlefield 1943, and even then the game had problems with the 360 Party System if I'm not mistaken. Furthermore, many games provide their own party systems like Resistance, Call of Duty, Little Big Planet, MAG, and Uncharted 2. XBL has a little more convenience, no doubt, but not much.Originally Posted by Iceglow
Moreso, I disagree with Iceglow and DK because I have to question what kinds of game experiences you're having on XBL once you get into matches. It seems to me that 360 games just provide the same generic multiplayer modes that have been the norm for the last 15 years.
I would argue the PS3 has better online games. SOCOM and Warhawk are 32 player tactical shooters, the latter with a variety of vehicles on land, sea, and air. You can hop into a friend's game in Little Big Planet and build a level together. Killzone 2 is up to 32 players with dynamic matches with a deep class system boasting an impressive array of effects. Resistance 2 is up to 60 players on massive maps also with dynamic matches. Demon's Souls is arguably innovating the community experience of RPG's. And MAG, well, I think that goes without saying.
IV. Conclusion
I totally agree XBL is a solid service that gives you convenience for your money, but in no way is it faster or more stable. Wi-Fi is an awesome feature to have in your box. Lastly, the PSN is all but caught up with XBL, but even then, I would say the PS3 library gives you more to choose from and experience when it comes to online multiplayer.




Reply With Quote