Xbox Live having a price and some sort of value is Microsoft selling point. Its backwards...no one charged for online until them.

It is a right unless we're talking MMOs which cost so much to maintain the servers.
I"m talking $60 FPS here like Halo or COD. These games should have everything unlocked when you buy it. On 360, if you don't pay for Live, you can't play the online portion which I belive is worse than an online pass. NO, $60 A YEAR IS NOT A LOT BUT GAMERS ARE STILL GETTING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

Nope the opposite. No one will pay for something that was previously free.

It will kick Sony out of the console wars if they did that.

Microsoft convinced them otherwise. When they see that with cross chat PSN is no different from Xbox Live they will question what they are paying for. Its all mental really. People like the aesthetics and layout of Xbox Live.

Still haven't figured out why more people aren't in the same position or at least point it out if they are. If I had to guess, it's because people that are fully invested in the Xbox ecosystem have always been paying for XBL and assuming they still use the service with any sort of regularity, have simply accepted it as an added expense of gaming on the Xbox. MS doesn't need to give free access to games or discounts because they were never a part of XBL Gold. 

As someone who started with PSN in the initial days where it offered little more than online play and gradually evolved into a service that was on par with XBL, and someone who was never more than an off and on user of XBL, my $50-60 a year would essentially be paying for maybe 2-3 weeks of online play per game for the rare Xbox exclusive, which has slowed to 1 or 2 games a year in terms of games that I have any desire to buy. Poor value. But, a lot of players tend to play the same online game(s) for months if not years between franchise updates and clearly still get their value from a subscription even if they only buy a few games per year. If one buys most of their games for the Xbox, it goes without saying you have to subscribe to Gold if you want the most out of your games. 

XBL Gold does offer a considerable amount of services and features; by contrast XBL Silver is little more than a portal to enable access to a paid Gold account (other than demos and videos, which are the main feature of Silver). Without Gold, the Xbox essentially becomes a single player/local multiplayer platform. So the XBL model effectlvely takes away as a means to promote paid subscriptions. But in reducing the utility of the platform, it also makes it considerably less attractive to play on which can result in inactive consoles. 

PSN Plus, by contrast provides additional services and features (some of which could have been free features other than cloud storage which does take server space/money to maintain), in particular, discounts on PSN purchases, making it a clear value to anyone invested in the PSN ecosystem and presumably buys a substantial amount of DD content. Even if not, Plus does offer a considerable amount of free games for current subscribers. The Plus model effectively gives more as a means of promoting paid subscriptions without making them necessary to gain access to the majority of the PS3 platform's features. But that's still irrelevant if the PS3 isn't used with regularity. 

Regardless of which offers better value in terms of content for subscription fees, it still boils down to which service the consumer prefers to use, and to a larger extent, which ecosystem they prefer to game in is largely dependent upon where that person's friends/family play. 

Yeah, it was pretty much the consensus by everyone but Microsoft. Xbox Live Silver is downright worthless. As for Sony,they wanted to start online after the time Sega did (hiring Microsoft to help them) because they had been trying to do online gaming since the Genesis era. The only thing Microsoft has ever done for gaming is create a pay to use your own online service. Has it helped or hurt gaming? It's only left things in question and split a marketshare between the same group of gamers. I guess it helped get Sony off of Nintendos back, but yeah thats about it. Yeah if I don't like Xbox Live don't use it...yes...and get locked out of My Xfinity, Netflix and the like? Microsoft should leave those things optional on Xbox Live Silver like Sony does for standard PSN. Netflix has nothing to do with Xbox Live and the system of choice to use it is PS3 for a reason.

Xbox Live can be a lower price or even free. Explain to me what is worth paying for? I've gone through it quite a few times and everytime I do the list of things worth paying for drops drastically. You already pay for your online, Microsoft is just becoming a middle man and forcing you to pay a toll.

You were the one who brought rewards into this when it isn't exactly free to add to things Microsoft does when they really aren't doing anything.

As for this months PSN Plus update: Does Microsoft do....this?

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/03/26/playstation-plus-april-preview-free-shank-2-and-shift-2-unleashed-ghost-recon-future-soldier-beta/

Free games, Free trials, discounted games, free and discounted themes and avatars and much more. Don't equate PSN PLUS with Xbox Live Gold...they are not the same. As I said PSN Plus would be like a tier above Live like a Platinum.  Standard PSN and Xbox Live Gold share more similar functions.

@S.T.A.G.E My family has Xbox Live Gold on the 360. When, it's not paid for the Xbox is partically useless. How come you have to have a Gold account to watch Hulu and Netflix?! This makes no sense! Can't even watch Youtube!

LOL My sentiments exactly. Im still questioning what we're paying for besides layout updates.

I switched back to FREE/SILVER today. Despite them offering 3 mo. for $10 or $39.99 for a year. I'm done with ME3 MP and I'll be moving soon anyway. I'll buy a month to try Halo 4 MP and maybe Fable 4 this fall.

I can transfer and use NetFlix on my comp if I want but it doesn't have much I want to see lately. Free XBL is perfectly acceptable to get trailers, dlc, updates, patches although some demos come out a few weeks later. No big deal.

OT: If Sony make the move gradually by not adding new features to the base service and adding and promoting them as only on SEN+ they'll  gradually increase their monthly income without a backlash. Taking things away from the Sony crowd could prove problematic. They can get kinda vocal. ;-p

Do you even know what we are discussing? He is stating that PSN+ gives every member $1200+  of stuff every month. I'm asking where this number is coming from? If  people have most them and/or they have no interest in them; then how are they still getting this $1200 value every month? We are trying to discuss preceived value. If you have most of those games, then you are basically paying a fee for what? Basically, I was asking what other services and products do PSN+ offer that would equate to $1200+.

Ask far as I know, most stores do not require you to pay a $50 yearly premium to shop there and have access to their sales either. But I not going to get into bantering about analogies with you as we are already a bit off topic discussing the preceived values of PSN+ and Xbox LIVE Gold.