PSN Plus isn't paying for PSN, but a tier service above it.

Cannot understand people who defend XBL fees.

I subscribe to Lovefilm, a movie streaming service. I can access this free on my PC, or free on PS3. If I want to do the same on my 360 I need XBL Gold.

Why? Where the hell is the cost on Microsofts part? I pay lovefilm for the subscription, Lovefilm stream it from their servers to me. The 360 is just a connection device between my router and TV. So why exactly do I need pay MS for the privilege of using my paid for subscription on my own internet line which I pay for and get data from Lovefilms servers.

Lovefilm is not even close to being the only example like this.

XBL Gold paying for MP servers is a complete farce also, most games are P2P hosting, that is a player using their own internet connection, no XBL servers. Some games like many of EAs use dedicated servers, again nothing to do with XBL.

Activision gets a cut of XBL fee, well I don't play any Activision games...I take it I pay less because of this? What, no? I'm paying for other people to play and not myself? Amazing.

Actually I know it's when you buy it used I'm just making a point, You say MS is wrong for charging for Live even though MS  has to pay for the bandwidth and you are essentially saying you should have it all for free. But in the same thought defending Sony for online passes because they are not compensated for a used sale. When in reality MS has to pay a price for online so they charge for the service and Sony loses a used game sell so they charge also, if you would stop being a fanboy maybe you would see this.

Sony puts out a lot of games dude on a larger scale than Microsoft. The sales aren't exactly stellar for most (as is to be expected)and they are great games but I doubt most discount the quality or the risk. Marketing is a huge problem there on Sony's party.  Used sales could possibly contribute to this and if I buy a used game and get locked out because a title was too expensive I don't mind paying ten dollars. Xbox Live isn't justifying the cost when compared to PSN or even PC. As I said before to someone else as well I don't take kindly to paying Activision in my subscription because I don't play COD, I don't like the feeling that if I dont pay for Live I could be kicked out of my entertainment subscriptions as well. This is why more people watch Netflix on the PS3 than the 360. Does Microsoft really believe more people will opt for Xbox Live to watch UFC than their cable or satellite provider box which is next to the 360 in the house? It's an option yes, but it's not a selling point for Xbox Live in truth. ESPN? MSN? Am I paying for that? Are you? I don't even think casuals would over the alternative.

I know it's when you buy a Used game I was just making the point that just like Sony needs to be compensated for a used game sale, Microsoft needs to compensated for bandwidth and other XBL perks. Also don't ever try to make assumptions on my purchasing habits because actually I buy all my games new but I would never talk down too people who do not buy new.

I did not make an assumption, I simply stated that if you buy used I don't feel sorry for you needing to pay extra for online. The developers get nothing from a used sale.

My question which I pose to you at this point in PSN's growth is what perks are Microsoft providing that PSN doesnt? They had apps before Microsoft, online gaming is free, you can talk to your friends freely without getting locked out of communication on Xbox Live Silver. Theres no difference there unless you're talking cross chat, which the Vita already has and Sony obviously intended later on for the PS3 but can't because of technology issues. At this point theres nothing as a gamer that Xbox Live has over PSN and it's still free.

Stop just Stop, because your ramblings are getting off point and resemble a rehearing. Weather or not it is worth it is completely up to person paying for it and like you said it's optional. My only point was that it costs MS money so they charge for it that's all.

What ramblings? You made your point and I am just responding. It's called breaking down reasons for the cost. If Microsoft pays for bandwidth then so does Sony and Nintendo. If you're making that argument for Microsoft one would assume its the same for Sony since they are doing essentially the same thing, correct?

Yes I understand that devs get nothing from used game sales, but if they were truly hurting from it why would they go after the consumer instead of the people profiting off used game sales? It's because no matter how you twist it devs nickle and dime just like everyone else except they target the consumer directly instead of places like gamestop which makes billions, which makes them no better than them,that's why I don't care when people buy used games and will continue not too.