Haha! Yep, been there before. Damn predictive text! :)

lol seems like someone made an article about something he doesn't even get...

PSN = FREE On-Line Gaming
PS+ = Service -> $50 per year -> You can CHOOSE to get it or not

Next Month I'll Subscribe, I don't care if people don't Understand this Service, bad for them, I'll start to make Collection of PSN Games, This Service will Only Get Better, so lets Enjoy it...

Here is a simple rule. If you can't properly name a service then you are something of a moron for attemting (vainly) to criticize said ervice. It isn't PSN+, it is PS+. PlayStation Plus. Since failed at even the most basic research, here is a link to help get you and your fellow incompetents started:

http://blog.us.playstation....

lol

says "360magazine.co.uk"

The guy who wrote this doesn't have a Ps3. He just wrote down supposed negatives that he heard about on the XboxRepublic forums.

I just find it funny how he's daring enough to criticize ps+ for using the pay as you go structure, meaning you lose access to content if you do not re-up, but Isn't that exactly what xbox live is? Seriously if you dont renew your subscription to live you lose the ability to Play your games online and access to your content. Not only do you pay for your console, game, internet connection but you have to pay just have the privelege to play that game online? Whats even worse is the horde of ravenous xbox zealots that whole heartedly defend that fact by using cross game chat as a tool for leverage. But at the end of the day what do features like cross game chat and other social features really add to the game experience?? Nothing at all.. They are all social interaction tools that having nothing to do with the core experience. So in essence they are paying for a social network.. It just blows my mind how they can defend something like that... Also 90% of the content on the ps store aside from games is free like themes, avatars, demos, some dlc and so on.. Xbox live charges for nearly everything.

LIVE is an system that MS requires you to purchase to play online. You do get some other services that Xbox fans tote, but bottom line is that you are PAYING TO PLAY ONLINE... This is completely different than what PSN+ offers.

PSN+ is a value-added discount program that gives its subscribers free and discounted stuff, including Qore, which on its own is $25 per year. Based upon what I've downloaded through PSN+, I've almost already gotten my money back in savings. And it's only been 2 weeks. Imagine the offerings that Sony will have once the service gets its legs.

LIVE Gold membership is required to get things like Hulu (next year), Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, etc.

On PSN, those things are FREE and will continue to be FREE... And with companies like EA now charging for online play and things like Hulu, Xbox owners are going to have to pay twice!

The 2 services are not the same at all.

One good point is the fact that when and if you cancel your subscription most of the "FREE" stuff that they gave you somehow get's taken away. That actually equates to a rental and not "free".

One thing that Sony did smart was to leave playing games online free. But as businesses go, even this could be in jeopardy. If they don't get enough subcribers for PSN Plus.

How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right.

There's nothing wrong with MS offering a subscription based service with features that justify the price but online play should be free and that's all there is too it. Especially since all of these other game devs are talking about subscription based services for their games, we shouldn't have to pay several subscription fees every year to play online.

"One good point is the fact that when and if you cancel your subscription most of the "FREE" stuff that they gave you somehow get's taken away. That actually equates to a rental and not "free"."

It doesnt "go away" it gets "locked up" only to be unlocked once you renew your subscription, like live you can play online again once you renew your gold.

Honestly, the site is named 360magazine.co.uk.

They have to show some bias regardless.
But i see no logic what so ever in their comments.

Gotta love misinformed jounalists who pull facts out of their tight asses that wont accept that they're getting ripped off. Oh well...

I'm really not trying to start an argument here but "Locked Up, Locked Out, however you want to spin it still equates to being taken away.

If I lock you out of you house, although you can still see it sitting there, it doesn't do you much good now does it.

@D4RkNIKON - Really, is that the best you can come up with?

"How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right."

Online play is not included in the price son, the game is sold by Activision, they can give-a-shit what you do with it. Hell Activision will sell you a copy of COD even if you don't have a console and it'll still cost you 60.00. Stop spinning it, the price of a game has nothing to do with live or psn. You guys are going to be totally speechless when you loose the free online play leverage, that seens to be the only thing you have left.

If Sony start to charge to play games, there are going to be many a rivers cried or boat loads of crow eaten.

@OSUgamer

Well really you have to spend it on live because otherwise you can't game online.

i dont think you understand.

how about i don't pay any freaking money and still play online for FREE!

OSU_Gamer

Capital D _______ lusional.

OSU gamer

WTF are you getting at. Stop trying to justify MS raping you guys. No where else on any platform or any console, pc or handheld do you HAVE to pay to play online. Face the facts LIVE is a ripoff.

WTF DUDE? dont talk anymore u are not making any sense.

I see, people really think we have to pay for PS+, huh? No, we dont. It's not mandatory and yes we can play online and most if not all Sony games are lagless.

I really think that 360 owners cant believe we dont have to pay and think we're just lying douches spreading fud on N4G.

I know that's not what you were going for, but you just proved that Live is more valuable. By taking both away, Live shows that is more valuable because you get a valuable feature by paying for it. PS+ is inherently less valuable because you lose nothing by not paying for it. PS+ is a luxury while Live is a necessity, in gaming terms. Necessities are always more valuable.

Oh my god, i cannot believe you just used that logic to to try and prove that Live is better - your an idiot mate.

You have completely missed the point that you sholdnt have to pay for it in the first place.

PC gamers dont pay for it, Apple gamers dont pay for it, Nintendo gamers dont pay for it, Sony gamers dont pay for it - only Xbox gamers pay for it and are dumb enough to think they are getting a good deal

What a joke.

ER-RAM, ok here simple for you...

"I know that's not what you were going for, but you just proved that Live is more valuable. By taking both away, Live shows that is more valuable because you get a valuable feature by paying for it. PSN is inherently less valuable because you lose nothing by not paying for it. PSN is a luxury while Live is a necessity, in gaming terms. Necessities are always more valuable."

Now that we fixed the fact THAT + IS OPTIONAL, did what you said made any sense? it didn't, oh man, really, did you even go to school!, it isn't that hard to understand.

The fact that PSN is FREE and PS+ is OPTIONAL, makes PSN a more interesting service THAN A PAID ONE.

Here let me help you.

Mandatory, SPELLED "man-da-to-ry" an ADJETIVE...
1. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Example for empty heads...."To play games online LIVE is mandatory".

Optional or let me spell it for you all
"op-tion-al" another adjetive...
1. Not compulsory or automatic, left to personal choice...Does it need any example?...

@OSU_Gamer:
"The fact still remains that even though you can have as many accounts as you want for PSN, XBL still has more paid subscriptions."

I'd love to see where you got those numbers, because everything I've read tells me the opposite. In January 2009, PSN and XBL both had 17 million accounts each. Considering, the PS3 has sold better worldwide every month, it's safe to assume the numbers have risen accordingly.

Logic does not always equal truth. Sure, you followed a wonderfully logical thought, but the end didn't really prove anything....Example. I require oxygen to remain alive. A fire requires oxygen to remain burning. Therefore, since a fire requires oxygen it must be alive??? How bout the one from the Heineken commercials...I like women...women like Neil Sedaka...I like Neil Sedaka???" *LOL* Funny, but not very true.
There is a concept of false value. It's value is tied to it's need in a pay structure. However, would it be as valuable if offered for less or even free? So, sure paying for online in XBL is of value, but in comparison to it being offered for free does it still hold it's value?