I'll throw in my two bits:
SegaNet came out in like the year 2000 and it cost like $20 a month. Xbox Live came out in like 2002 and it offered a pretty awesome online service (at the time) for $50 a year. People felt that it was more than worth it. So, when the Xbox 360 came out, it offered a much improved service for the same price.
Nintendo's online doesn't even come close to Sony or Microsoft's (though the Wii U's is a step in the right direction). PC has always been a different beast altogether. So, we'll keep this between Microsoft and Sony.
Maybe it's already been said but Sony offers a comparable service to Xbox Live for free. Some people may actually even prefer Sony's service. Me? I prefer Xbox Live. When Sony was selling the PS3 for $600, free online was one of the things they touted to get customers to pick the PS3 over the Xbox 360. Initially, was a huge improvement over the bare bones service of the PS2 (compared to Xbox Live on the original Xbox) but it didn't hold a candle to what the Xbox 360 was offering. Xbox Live was definitely worth $50 by comparison back in 2007. As time progressed, Sony offered more and more value to their free service just like Microsoft offered more and more value to their paid service.
Microsoft didn't feel the need to lower the price of their profitable service. Why should they? It was worth $50 in 2002 so it should be worth the similar amount in 2012 considering the improvements, right? Did your cable bill from 2000 get lower because the internet offered much of the content for free? So, if anything, Sony should have probably charged more for the PSN and all of the improvements they implemented over the years. Maybe they wouldn't be in the shape they are in right now. Despite how many people may feel, this is a business and it's Sony and Microsoft's job to make money.
The Joker said (in The Dark Knight) that "If you're good at something, never do it for free." The Joker would be very disappointed in Sony.
