This is what i wront on another thread that gave the idea of making this thread

Honestly Xbox live should not be worth more than PSN. I can't believe people would $50 a year (including me). Hopefully this will be my 12 month which will be expiring in february. Its ironic that xbox live costs $50-$60 a year but PSN has more games with dedicated servers. And xbox live has maybe 1 or 2 and then gears 3 which is long overdue for dedicated servers. I guess you can justify paying $60 a year just because xbox live, is more user friendly(it might not be for some of you), has more people, and cross game chat, but it's still not worth it. Microsoft has people locked up to believe that xbox live really is better and thats why so many people would pay $60. In reality though xbox live is not much better than PSN.

In case you don't believe me about PS3 having dedicated servers here is a pic of the warhawk servers

I would tell you but if the PS3 owners knew the secret, they'd be too jealous.  It's best left unsaid.

fact

LOL!

Anyone want to give a real answer though?

For me, Halo : Multiplayer alone is worth more than $60 a  year. Believe me, if Sony and Nintendo can charge the same, they would do it. They are business like Microsoft. 

What do you mean by "can"? Of course they can.

Basically, I mean that they know that charging for Multiplayer will remove one benefit of having their consoles over 360. 

Maybe if Sony actually invested in improving their features you would have an actual good reason to ask that question. However firmware upgrades and PSN come out of Japan and Japan doesn't get the importance of online gaming. It wouldn't hold your breath.

give me some examples of features that need improving. i know psn definately needs cross game chat but what else. what makes xbox live so much more worth it?

But based on the vocals folks here, the $50 or whatever is so worth it that it's not a benefit for Sony.