The thing I don't generally like about 'free' systems is that they have a tendency to skimp on bandwidth, servers and administrators. If a paid system can provide better services, I have no problem paying a fee. I'm not saying paid systems are always better, but if the system is lousy they will lose my money which is more incentive for them to do a good job.

at first glance Sony's free online play seems attractive compared to XBL Golds fee for online play but can this be a potential backfire for Sony titles?

As omgwtfbbq said, game developers have to provide their own servers and services from their pocket money thus future PS3 titles may lack more online playability than 360 titles.  IIRC for Virtua Tennis, 360 has online play but PS3 doesn't right???

Live =  paying for lag.

Resistance blows away Gears online.

Microsoft will stop charging for online when people stop paying for it. And I don't think they'll have to worry about that anytime soon. Of course it helps that the PS3 is doing poorly and Nintendo's online gaming so far consists of one game in Japan using friend codes.

 +1 million PSn sign ups already.

As long as Halo is popular xbots will pay for online.

 1 million isn't that much...

 5/6 years later Live has 6 million.

1 mill in 5 months. 

 Even if it were more. Xbox live isn't in competition with PSn. the 360 is in competition with the PS3. Microsoft has a  steady number of people purchasing their console, many of which then pay for live gold. The differences between the two online systems only matters if it starts to shift sales from one to the other. If the PS3 somehow makes big leaps in sales and closes the gap on the xbox, then expect Microsoft to cut their live fees.

With all the bills I'm paying already I could NEVER justify paying to play videogames.

MMORPG's scare me off for that very reason. Buy once, own forever is my motto.

I'm curious to see XBox Live in action though. I've never seen it. My friend in another state had it but his is broken right now awaiting repair from MS. Plus like I said he's in another state so all I can do is ask him about it. I'd rather get a first hand see-with-my-own-eyes account. Maybe I should go on youtube and search for xbox live in action.

I like to know what I'm talking about before I make a bunch of statements. I hear good and bad about that system and the same for Playstation Network but I've never seen either of them in action.

I WILL say however that if I'm paying money like that for a service it had better be good. I just talked to my XBox friend over the phone just now and he told me that Oblivion wasn't online multiplayer on 360. I'm like what? Can't be. I thought that would be the ONE game that WOULD be perfect for that service. I thought mostly all the games on XBox Live were online multiplayer enabled. Both XBox 360 titles and those from the Live Arcade. Can some fill me in on this?

I WILL say putting UNO on XBox 360 was a smart move. I used to love playing that long ago. 

As for MS going free for XBox Live I don't think so. They are already money rigging this system up enough. Wii's online multiplayer will be free but will have those friend codes that some people find annoying so XBox may end up being a collectively equal alternative. You get it for free but pay with patience over style of service or you pay but get the freedom of access. I think they would balance each other out.

Just my take on the situation.

John Lucas

john lucas, Oblivion is a single player RPG.  You cannot make a single player game for online play lol.

and "all the games on XBox Live" is a bit misleading.  Xbox Live is a service providing downloadable contents and online play for those games capable of it, not a game library.