Ceteris paribus of course... but if the service was different, then I don't see the point of the discussion.

One thing for sure though is that MS would have had less resources allocated to X360 development as they would have had less revenues... especially in the costly early years.

no. I think we would be seeing much less content than we have now, and if millions of people are willing to pay right now for the content it has then its proof that it is very successful as it is. People are many times willing to pay for quality.

If you didn't have to pay for Live...My family would probably have a 360. We have a Wii and got a PS3 over the 360 due to the Online being free. If Live was free and had even PS3's online than we probably would have picked 360 over PS3.

I actually committed blasphemy, and voted a resounding yes. I will further compound my blasphemy by saying that gold is overpriced crap. This isn't a question of whether there is a place for subscription services. The question is why Microsoft doesn't actually provide content to justify the fee they are charging. Not only does the fee discourage any number of potential customers. They are charging for something that is actually free on any personal computer, or portable internet enabled device. The service is both superfluous, and nothing less then highway robbery. Bottom line it has a negative impact on the image.

I am calling the argument that Live is good to be nothing less then complete bullshit. Microsoft is not providing any content at all. Every service offered through Live is already an existing service that was already free to access elsewhere. Playing online was always free prior to this generation, and it isn't as if Microsoft has dedicated game servers up and running. No it is left up to the players hardware to serve as a host.

Live is just a shiny advertisement for games, and a overpriced portal to services that are free, or you have to pay for already. Don't give me this crap it is worth all they charge. I was intent on not resubscribing early this year. No I was not keen on paying for jack shit. The only way Microsoft got my jaded ass back was to bribe me with a free retail game. Only then did the price become less reprehensible.

That should tell you guys something. Microsoft had to bribe me with a forty dollar game before I would pony up for another year. They wouldn't be doing that if it weren't necessary. More and more people are becoming very jaded about what Microsoft is charging, and are walking away from the service. Which is only a short step form switching brands.

Microsoft better get its head out of its ass, and start to contrive real content. This overpriced portal, and shitty online gaming experience is nowhere near worth what they are charging. When the owners of your console are turning their backs. You can bet your ass they are not going to be advocating your product. Promotional freebies of such high cost cannot be all that practical either. Right now I have my expectations raised. I will expect to get something of equal value early next year, and unless I get that they and I will be right back where we started out this year. Me holding out on them until they bribe me with something I cannot ignore.

Anyway if Microsoft doesn't intend to expand the service with original content then they are probably better off dropping the fee altogether. The fee drives consumers away, and with nothing actually up for sale it isn't bringing consumers onto the platform. Right now it is doing no good, and a lot of harm. All I am saying is be one or the other. Either be worth the price being charged, or abandon the fee altogether. There is nothing worse the being totally overpriced.

No, the fee made the service what is today. Also someone said above that the xbox would lose its edge over the ps3 if live was free, thats not true. If Live was always free it would not be up to the quaility it is now which means Sony would not care about psn cause online would not matter as much. So in a way live would still be a much better service but compared to live today with a fee it would pretty bad.

Wow.....................................

i would argue with you but than agian how do you aruge with someones opinion with your own?

No - It has made the service what it is. The only reason this comes up is prodimantly due the service being free on PSN. I am yet to be convinced that the service being free was good for Sony or the consumer. I am also pretty sure the others wish they had produced a paid service and slowly but surely they will. Microsofts revenue model must be very compelling especially if you are a shareholder.

I agree with all except the highlighted, I think they are getting a growing number of psn+ users and are happy with the income they get from that, I feel they will always keep online gaming free but for any added extras that come in the future i see it coming under psn+

I agree with pretty much all of this,  despite actually paying for the service myself. 

Live is probably one of the reasons why the Xbox can sell for such a low price. M$ knows that if they can just get the console into homes, a good portion of the customers are going to pony up the cash for Xbox Live. PSN offers most of the features that Live has but it can't possibly be nearly as profitable as XBL is. So, my stance is that, without Live, the Xbox would actually be more expensive and the online wouldn't be as good as it is right now. There would be absolutely no reason to purchase a 360 instead of a PS3 (and I think even the PS3 would be more expensive because Sony wouldn't have to match Microsoft's prices).

So, no. Xbox 360 is nothing without Xbox Live behind it. Xbox Live is nothing without the funds that Microsoft makes because of it. And, I don't have any proof but I don't think the PSN would be half of what it is if Sony weren't doing their best to keep up with XBL. So PS3 fans should actually be thanking Xbox 360 owners for making Sony improve their online and lowering their price.