Why PlayStation Plus is a better deal than XBOX Live Gold

Alright, so, I've been thinking a lot about this.  I have both a 360 and a PS3.  I love both systems, so please try not to paint me as a fanboy, here.  I am probably not as into multiplayer stuff as much as the average guy, but I do enjoy it every once in awhile.  PlayStation Plus and XBL Gold both cost $49.99 a year.   
 
On XBL, that gives you access to online gaming (free with basic PSN),  Netflix (also free), and one free game, namely, 1 Vs. 100.  Where you have slightly more than no chance to win more games.  On Plus, you are actually paying for benefits. Exclusive access to betas and demos, which, sure, you could say are just as easily offered free to everyone, but so is online multiplayer.  New free games and stuff every month, and yeah, I know they go away when you stop paying for them, but since you're getting new stuff every month, and if you keep up the service, isn't it likely you'll get your fill of that stuff eventually?  
 
 If Microsoft started offering free games for Gold, people'd flock to it, regardless of whether or not you got to keep them after you cancelled.  Where I think the problem lies, is that nothing Sony's doing is essential.  There's nothing you need Plus for.  Which I think is a good thing.  It's an actual premium service, instead of Microsoft's policy of selling you the XBOX and making you pay for a part of it forever.  
 
 So really, for a guy like me with both systems, I'd rather pay that $50 to Sony and get something, and just use my ps3 for all my multiplayer and netflix and hulu plus needs.  For games like Halo, I think I could buy a month or two of service and be good, although I realize I may be a unique case here.  Really, at this point the only thing I need either service for is Hulu Plus, so if I'm going to pay $50 a year, might as well pay it to the guys who will give me something for it.  Even if it does go away when I finally decide to stop paying it.

Alright, so, I've been thinking a lot about this.  I have both a 360 and a PS3.  I love both systems, so please try not to paint me as a fanboy, here.  I am probably not as into multiplayer stuff as much as the average guy, but I do enjoy it every once in awhile.  PlayStation Plus and XBL Gold both cost $49.99 a year.   
 
On XBL, that gives you access to online gaming (free with basic PSN),  Netflix (also free), and one free game, namely, 1 Vs. 100.  Where you have slightly more than no chance to win more games.  On Plus, you are actually paying for benefits. Exclusive access to betas and demos, which, sure, you could say are just as easily offered free to everyone, but so is online multiplayer.  New free games and stuff every month, and yeah, I know they go away when you stop paying for them, but since you're getting new stuff every month, and if you keep up the service, isn't it likely you'll get your fill of that stuff eventually?  
 
 If Microsoft started offering free games for Gold, people'd flock to it, regardless of whether or not you got to keep them after you cancelled.  Where I think the problem lies, is that nothing Sony's doing is essential.  There's nothing you need Plus for.  Which I think is a good thing.  It's an actual premium service, instead of Microsoft's policy of selling you the XBOX and making you pay for a part of it forever.  
 
 So really, for a guy like me with both systems, I'd rather pay that $50 to Sony and get something, and just use my ps3 for all my multiplayer and netflix and hulu plus needs.  For games like Halo, I think I could buy a month or two of service and be good, although I realize I may be a unique case here.  Really, at this point the only thing I need either service for is Hulu Plus, so if I'm going to pay $50 a year, might as well pay it to the guys who will give me something for it.  Even if it does go away when I finally decide to stop paying it.

Yea i haven't understood the ps+ complaining at all. They're not taking anything away from you by offering this so chill, If people wanna pay a subscription to get random free stuff every month then let them. It's kinda fun seeing what new free stuff/discounts you could be getting the next month.

Owning both systems doesn't mean shit and posting that will probably just get you attacked by the troll army. I'm only on PS3 at the moment, but I would rather have the ability to play online than get 4 games a month, most of which I'm not interested in anyway. Fortunately I get online play free, and as i'm not interested in throwing money away on poor quality games I don't spend anything on online services. It's a bit early to start talking about playstation plus anyway, we won't have a proper idea for at least a year, they say betas and shit now but that doesn't mean you'll be getting that. Sony would charge for online play, but can't because they're offered it for free for so long and its one of their few remaining selling points over the 360, instead they offer this sub par service.

I can certainly see your point on this matter; however, I personally will not be spending for the extra "premium" content. While you have valid points in it's comparison to Xbox live gold the free PSN multilayer still isn't quite up to where gold membership in terms of functionality. Also maybe it's just me, but  feel like that if Sony had rolled this out initially then I wouldn't have had much of a problem with it. Now that everyone has gotten used to not having to pay for their online service though it just fells a little odd at the thought of it. And while the thought of free games is a nice notion it only is a benefit if you don't already own the game. I wish they had multiple games and let you have some sort of voucher where you could choose which one you wanted instead of throwing out one to everybody.

I disagree because with Xbox Live you are paying for better multiplayer like faster matching and better integrated friend lists and the like while with Playstation Plus you are paying for extras. For me I'll keep paying for gold and playing most multiplayer on the 360 and playing PS3 exclusives or games which are better on the PS3 on it. Just my opinion though as there is nothing wrong with the PS3's online I just find it kinda lacking compared to the 360. I do see what you mean though. I'm not convinced that Microsoft won't do something to compete with Playstation Plus though, they have offered discounts for games to people on gold and stuff like that.

Playstation + is exactly what it its advertised to be.  Your normal Playstation experience Plus a little bit extra.  I dont see how people can hate on that.  Its not like you have to pay for it to play online.

" I disagree because with Xbox Live you are paying for better multiplayer like faster matching and better integrated friend lists and the like...."

Your logic doesn't make all that much sense.

Comparing XBL Gold with regular PSN has always been reasonable. But you're not 'getting more' for PS+ than Xbox Live, you're getting less  because regular PSN already has most of the features that XBL Gold offers with its service. Comparing the extra features offered by XBL and PS+, the latter clearly has far less to offer.

How's that cross game chat? Multi-person party chat? Multiple chat channels? 
 
...anyone?

I think the early demo access is their way of saying "we're just holding this demo for an extra week for the cheap assholes".
 
It doesn't matter what Sony gives you, Microsoft simply has a better overall structure.

I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.
 
THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?
 
BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED

 I think what Sony is offering is 

• Fundamentally different than what Microsoft is offering. Live is a service, PS+ is more like a membership to a store.
• Possibly substantial content, this is perhaps the real problem with the PS+. Like others have stated until PS+ has been around for awhile we won't know what Sony's expectations are for delivering content. Europeans were offered  LBP for free with the first year paid, that kind of big name recognition needs to happen everywhere. 

" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "

I think PC Multiplayer is best. All you need is internet. For consoles, you're paying on top of your needed internet.

I'm not a PS3 owner but if I were I'd be pissed at this whole plus thing. I always respected Sony keeping online play free (as it should be). Obviously the board members at Sony have watched Microsoft successfully hold 360 owners hostage for $50 a year and now that the user base is at a point where they are committed to the console they pull this. Anyone who doesn't think that multiplayer gaming won't eventually cost them on the PS3 is dreaming. Then we can determine what's the better deal.

Yeah, the PS+ probably is the better deal, but I'm still to cheap to pay for either one. 

if playstation's multiplayer network were as good as the xbox's, i would wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

The problem is MS made the smart (still lame) move of hiding all the perks behind the Gold wall. Netflix, timed demos, beta, Hulu (coming soon) and PSN+ doesnt hve all the bells and whistles of Gold, yea the games are cool, but what if you dont want the game. And the lack of Cross game chat... 
 
Overall, the Ps3 is my single player console and the Xbox is my online console, no point in crossing the streams now.

Just a side note, while XBL is 50 dollars (plus tax) if you go the recurring route, if you stick to 12 month prepaid cards, it's really easy to find deals for $30-$35 bucks flat. 

"Sony would charge for online play, but can't because they're offered it for free for so long and its one of their few remaining selling points over the 360, instead they offer this sub par service. "

" @KuribosShoe: Xbox Live Gold members sometimes get early access to demos, and MS has given out games for free. (Though, unless I'm mistaken, those games didn't require Gold membership for download. But I could be wrong about that.) I am having a hard time seeing PSN as premium when what they're offering for free games is kinda lousy. When you pay MS the $50, you're paying to play online. When you pay it to Sony for PSN+, you're getting some lousy free games and access to already free demos a little early. Which is why I won't be getting it.
 
Sony is basically looking to increase revenue, since the regular PSN is proving to be rather expensive to maintain. But unless they can come up with some decent content for it, PSN+ is really no different at all from Xbox Live Gold. The key feature is online play, which is what drives people to pay the $50 for Xbox Live Gold. But PSN already has that for free. So unless Sony gives something gamers feel is worth $50, I doubt there will be all that much interest.
 
Drakattack above is correct. This is basically Sony getting its customers used to the idea of paying for Playstation Network access, because in the next generation console, online play will not be free. They're just turning up the heat more slowly. Depending on the economy and Sony's bottom line, we may even see a move to a pay service for online play before the next generation of consoles hits.  Edit: Oh, another thing: if Sony produces any decent free games for the PSN+ service, I will eat my hat. "

" @drakattack said:

" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "

Well I'll have you know-- Hold on, I just heard a huge explosion coming from my bedroom.  Oh.  My fanboy-radar just blew up. "

" I think PC Multiplayer is best. All you need is internet. For consoles, you're paying on top of your needed internet. "

xbox live they have make people without gold wait a week for a demo to come out, just like PSN+. i'm going to wait a little bit for it to be a full service, if you know what i mean. everything that they mentioned is fully out and working.

I'd say normal PSN is a better deal than Xbox Live Silver because you can play online.  However, Gold is better than PSN+ because it's how you play online games.  Plus Xbox Live Gold months are given out free fairly often, and you can almost always buy a year for Gold for $30 or less.

Paid multiplayer is universally assumed for the next generation Sony console. 

Wow... that was actually really helpful. A++ on this topic.

In my opinion, the point that you made is that the online service in general of the PS3 is better than the 360 because its free. That doesn't make the premium service better than the gold service just because you already have multiplayer for free. Now I can't comment on if what they offer for free every month is even worthwhile or not because that is a matter of opinion, but that pretty much is what bases the statement of whether or not which one is better, opinion of what each offers and what you value.

Try separating your wall of text more next time. It's easier on the eyes. 
On topic: PSN+ is definitely more acceptable than something like XBL to those who have really looked at what they are paying for. $50 so I can play online when no other console does this. I'm talking PC, PS3, DSi, PSP, and so on. The only reason XBL isn't free is because they got it out there first.  
 
PSN+: You pay for extra things that enhance your experience. You have free online that is enhanced by free DLC, themes, avatars, and full game trials. The service is there for those who use the PS Store often or want more out of their PSN experience. There is absolutely nothing there that players need. Some oppose this saying that the service is useless, but others are grateful for an offer and also the fact that it does not take away from what was already free. 
 
XBL Gold: You pay to join the community. If you cannot play online, what is the point of having a silver account? So I can talk to my friends who are playing the latest online games? Having a silver account is basically like having nothing. However, a Gold account is a great service regardless. Many people, including myself, agree that XBL is only the way it is, because no other service has matched it's offerings so far. Notice, I didn't say it's a good deal, because it isn't. If they made it so that online multiplayer was free, then XBL Gold would seem more reasonable. Party chat, exclusive content, and free stuff would be a fair incentive to pay for gold.  
 
While I think both are justifiable, Sony's plan sounds like the value pays off in the end. I hope XBL will change in the future, but it only will if Sony can match the service in a reasonable manner. This seems like a good step in that direction.

Valid points. I do not have an Xbox 360 nor do I have a PlayStation Plus subscription, so I am unable to fully give reason to how they compare.

@immike:

you can still play online for free 
that's better than gold and plus, suck it.

What the fuck is everyones problem? How the hell do you think that you're not getting more with Playstation Plus? For all you demo lovers. You guys are just looking at the glass as half empty. You swear that you will never see that demo. Well, pay them $18 or $50 and you'll get it a week earlier. For everyone else that thinks that demos is all your getting, yeah fuckin right. You know there's more shit, but you fail to look at everything. You just see the small shit and think that's all you're getting. Let's see, you get Wipeout HD, 9 add-ons for some crap games, Rally Cross (a crap PS1 game), Age of Zombies (probably a crap Minis game), some avatars, and a theme. I think that rounds up close to $50. If someone can do the math then that's great. Either way you get a bunch of crap on top of the service we already get for free. Compared to Xbox Live, which I do agree, their community based stuff is freakin incredible, but you don't get anything unless you pay $50 a year. 
 
Let's look at it this way. You already get tap water for free, but to get better tasting water delivered to your home and being able to put it into a dispenser to make it cool is something to pay for. But, you don't have to.

I guess I'm unlike the majority in that I don't play a whole lot of multiplayer. Why, if it wasn't for the downloadable content (and game patches), I wouldn't even go online at all.

Everyone forgets that Microsoft holds off exclusive Demos and Betas for Gold members only too. I remember last year every game demo wouldn't come out on PSN until Silver members on 360's had access to them.

Playstation Plus is definitely a better deal than XBL Gold. But as you said nothing Sony is doing with it is essential, which is why there is less incentive for most people to get it since Sony hasn't got their userbase (and developers) by the balls like Microsoft does. Sony needs to be a bit more of an asshole to compete imo (not that I'd want that).

I can appreciate that XBL is the superior service in most technical regards, but I'm still flabbergasted that people chime in so often promoting the virtues of the paid model.
 
Now, I don't expect XBOX-only owners to praise "the competition", but I think it's fair to expect multiplayer on multiplayer titles to be PART of the $60+ investment, at very least during its 90-day warrantee period. And I think it's obvious that if we want multiplayer to be an assumed part of the package, then we should probably stop chanting "I love paying Microsoft monthly to play the games I've already bought!" 
 
We should be hoping PSN steps up its FREE game, and adds the last remaining features that hold it back from being on par with XBL, leaving Microsoft to rethink the value of their subscription in hopes to make it cheaper for everyone, while holding Sony to its free model. The way these topics go, it seems a lot of people would rather PSN charge $50 annually for party chat.

Don't give a shit. Both do just fine in different ways.

" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "