WTF is going on at VGChartz today? It's totally dead on Firefox and I can't quote using Explorer (so if you think this post is directed at you, it is).
Whether Xbox Live is worth the cost is up to the customer. Many of us who choose to purchase Gold instead of going with the free version are satisfied with the service. Xbox Live cost $50 a year, since 2002. People thought it was worth the money then, too. The service we get now is leaps and bounds above what was available then and the price is pretty close to the same. Xbox Live exists in a vacuum, it seems. They don't care what the competition is doing. PSN being free this gen didn't influence Xbox Live, at all.
As I said earlier in this thread, the reason PSN users don't have to pay a price for what they get and the reason PSN is as good as it is is a direct result of the quality of Xbox Live. Xbox Live is what it is because of the fee. Sure, Microsoft could offer a free online version and cost themselves a ton of profit but it's a business, not a charity. Would Joker kill Batman for free? Not if he takes his own advice. Every feature that Microsoft adds to the service because they want people to pay for Xbox Live, Sony tries to add to the PS3 because they don't want people to choose Live over the PS3. As a result, even while selling more consoles, Sony is still making loing money on the PS3 while Microsoft is making money on the 360. Why don't people want a company to prosper?
The Microsoft way of doing things is the right way. They make a service that's enticing to the customer, they market it well, and people pay for it. Plain and simple. PSN is a viable alternative and its users are happy to bleed Sony's pocketbook. Good for them. As for the question asked by the OP, my answer is no. Without Xbox Live, the Xbox 360 would be dead and thus not popular at all. That money is keeping the system and new services flowing.
