PSN or XBLA: Which has better bang for your buck?

[pulse2]

(Note: I'd add Wii to this but their online store is kind of lacking recently so its not really fair)

Lets ignore the typical arguments of which one is free online, which one has party chat, which is faster to download etc, I'm not interested in the features of the console itself but instead in your opinion of the quality and quantity of the downloadable games available on each console.

First of all, we have to bear in mind that both consoles have a vast array of online games and content to pick up, including exclusives, but just how many of these titles really make the difference? There is no point having lots of games if they all suck after all.

So to kick off the debate, here's the question, side by side, which online service do you think provides you the gamer with a more diverse and great value array of games both multiplat and exclusive, this does not include blockbuster games available in retail as well such as Assassin's Creed for one example, just strictly DLC exclusive titles such as castle crashers and flower.

Feel free to point out the time they release and the costs in your argument as well as the fullness of the title (feeling complete rather than a simple minigame, re-release or port), the availability of indie titles, quality of all titles and the amount of fun that can be had with these titles.

In the interest of avoiding fanboy statements without any value, state why and give examples of games you may have downloaded that you think the opposing console should have more of.

(Don't see it as a flame war just because of the comparison, see it as a mutual opinion that both consoles have a variety of awesome DL games, but we'd simply like to see more games like or similar to others that may be on the other console)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Nothing to do with titles, but what really annoys me about XBLA is the points system.

On the PS3, if something costs £3.99, you pay £3.99. Simple and easy.

On XBLA, you want to buy something that costs 300 Microsoft points, tough shit, you've got to pay for 500.

It's unecessasry, and just emphasises how obsessed with money Microsoft is (not that it's a bad thing, but come on, be less obvious about it).

 

[StrixMaxima]

PSN is quickly catching up in terms of content. And paying exact amounts beats purchasing online currencies. I have no complaints about PSN.

 

[Vegetunks9000]

Will have to say that this is opening up a thread for fanboys and trolls. but you kinda new that anyway. I admire your risk dear sir.

I prefer XBL. It really is all down to preference. I like the prettyness of XBL. (i'm so lame haha). Plus i've always put my trust in MS and they've never failed me. But have to agree with Daystar Clarion. The MS Point system is annoying.

 

[LookingGlass]

Well I don't have an Xbox but I hate the PSN store because its Australian prices are absurd.

From Dust for US customers: $15
From Dust for AU customers: $23.95

Rochard for US customers: $10
Rochard for AU customers: $15.95

At the time of writing, AU$1 = USD$1.01596

So yeah, fuck you Sony.

(I don't know if XBLA does this too, but it's worth noting that the Steam version of From Dust doesn't do this... unfortunately it's also a terrible port with annoying DRM.)

 

[pulse2]

you forgot steam
you know the one which also has AAA games

I haven't forgotten steam I deliberately left it out because it isn't quite a fair comparison, Sony and Microsoft make games exclusively for their stores as well as striking deals with developers to get games exclusively as well as extra content etc, so basically the question asked is "Are those attempts paying off?" Steam is different, while still being awesome.

 

[Zackary Yakumo]

If steam counted, i would choose steam. of course, steam has a whole boatload of old games I have somewhere and its over powered compared to PSN or XBLA.

now i used to have an xbx 360, just nmot gold membership. because fuck paying 60 US dolars to listen to a bunch of kids and teenagers ear rape me all day, when i can get that for free when i bought my ps3. But at the time, roughly 3 years ago, Microsoft got dlc first, they had more selection of games, and it didnt cost 600 dollars for the basic console.

Now, 3 years later, I look at both my brothers xbox 360 and my ps3, and realize ive gotten the better deal. I have free Multiplayer and online stuff, Dlc only comes out about a week after it comes out on Xbox, and I have abpout just as much content on the Psn, if not more, than XBLA.

 

[wooty]

PSN for me ANNNND the Wii-shoppy-channel-thingy, they both contain too many classics I loved in the past to pass up on. Indie games are fine and all that, but quality nostalgia trips are worth more than all that for me.

 

[FreakSheet]

you forgot steam
you know the one which also has AAA games

I haven't forgotten steam I deliberately left it out because it isn't quite a fair comparison, Sony and Microsoft make games exclusively for their stores as well as striking deals with developers to get games exclusively as well as extra content etc, so basically the question asked is "Are those attempts paying off?" Steam is different, while still being awesome.

To be fair, Steam does that too. Seen Dungeon Defenders? On Steam you get a Portal Gun to use in game, as a portal gun. Preorder a game on Steam? It might have some hats and/or weapons for TF2

 

[pulse2]

you forgot steam
you know the one which also has AAA games

I haven't forgotten steam I deliberately left it out because it isn't quite a fair comparison, Sony and Microsoft make games exclusively for their stores as well as striking deals with developers to get games exclusively as well as extra content etc, so basically the question asked is "Are those attempts paying off?" Steam is different, while still being awesome.

To be fair, Steam does that too. Seen Dungeon Defenders? On Steam you get a Portal Gun to use in game, as a portal gun. Preorder a game on Steam? It might have some hats and/or weapons for TF2

Not arguing against that and if that was my focus I would have gladly added in steam, but then, the difference is that PC gamers have a choice of putting steam on their PCs or not, PS3 and 360 owners don't, in most cases steam would most likely win for having more selection, having more flexibility and having more options for gamers who like to download, but I just want to know about PSN's selection vs XBLA's selection seeing as they are both in close competition with each other to offer gamers the best bang for their buck.

 

[Pearwood]

Well the best value is obviously PSN since it doesn't have a monthly fee and offers some content free of charge. As for the best online market I believe the XBLA has a bit more to choose from but that might just be a case of the grass looking greener on the other side.

 

[Googenstien]

I really like the PSN. besides being free to use it has pretty much same games as XBLA but also PSP, MINI, PS1, NEOGEO, and now PS2 classics coming.

The movie rental service is top notch.. 3.99 for a new release and many others discounted and even a .99 section. If you are into buying digi copies they sell pretty much all for 15-20 bucks with all new releases being $19.99 HD and Special Editions a bit more.

Now I dont know if XBLA offers all that too, but its a fair deal and throw in MLB.TV , NHL Gamecenter, NFL Gameday , the 3 movie streaming sites and music too.. it really has alot and for me here in Florida is fast as hell.

 

[CopperBoom]

PSN!
...because my 360 red-ringed and I have not bought a new one.

 

[Jamash]

Nothing to do with titles, but what really annoys me about XBLA is the points system.

On the PS3, if something costs £3.99, you pay £3.99. Simple and easy.

On XBLA, you want to buy something that costs 300 Microsoft points, tough shit, you've got to pay for 500.

It's unecessasry, and just emphasises how obsessed with money Microsoft is (not that it's a bad thing, but come on, be less obvious about it).

I like the points system, because I often buy DLC and add-ons, so my leftover points always get spent eventually (and having £1.70 worth of points tied up to my account won't break the bank) , and also I buy my points in bulk from 3rd party sellers rather than Microsoft, so I get DLC for less than it usually costs.

Take for example, the Undead Nightmare pack for Read Dead Redemption. Normally that's £7.99 on the PSN or 800 Microsoft Points (£6.80), but I only paid £5.32 for it (because I bought 2100 points for £13.99).

XBLA definitely has better bang for your buck for me, because not only is the exchange rate for MS Points more favourable (i.e. being less that 1p a point) in comparison to PSN pricing, but you can easily buy Microsoft points cheaper from 3rd parties than from Microsoft.

 

[FilipJPhry]

PSN. Duh. I've only paid for 4 DLC, and I got 5 downloaded games, some map packs, and some extra DLC thanks to my friends. XBL's pricing is pretty damn high.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I like XBLA's layout much more. PSN's is a mess (a fact made all the more strange by the fact that you can customize it to some degree...I still haven't found a layout I like as much as XBLA's).

But as has been said, XBLA's point system has to go. There's no reason for it. At least with the Wii's point system, one point = one penny, so you can do the math very easily...2000 points = $20. With the XBLA, you're forced to buy points in inconvenient numbers. I also dimly recall them saying they'd do away with that system, but they haven't.