You can easily go through your account management on disable auto renew. I do hate when services have it on by default. It should be a question upon signing up to avoid consumer confusion.

As one who experience both, I have a hard time understanding the "multiplayer is better on live" crap.

It's ok, like I said, it's better to many people who use Live. You apparently aren't one of those people.

Free makes people forget about a lot of stuff.

That's a terrible analogy. Let me fix it for you.

There are two burger joints, Sony Burger and MicroBurger. MicroBurger opened up first and had a really nice lobby and a menu with some interesting unique burgers. While anyone can come in and buy burgers, the lobby and its tables are restricted to premium MicroMembers Club who pay a monthly $5 fee for access. There is however the basic MicroMembers Club for everyone that includes a membership recognition rewards program.

One year later, Sony Burgers opens up next door and advertises a free lobby. While the lobby isn't as nice as MicroBurgers, there is no fee. Sony Burgers has a limited menu with varying quality at the same cost of burgers at MicroBurgers. After a while Sony Burgers adds more interesting unique burgers than MicroBurgers and even adds their own rewards program. While Sony Burger's non unique burger quality varies more than MicroBurger's they have a larger menu of quality burgers.

MicroBurger acknowledges the competition and starts to add more features in their lobby like TVs, comfy seating, music; but shortly after Sony Burger adds them too. Even though, MicroBurger keeps the edge on Sony Burger's lobby but is starting to run out of things to add. All of the sudden Sony Burger adds a premium membership at $4 a month. Basic members still retain access to the lobby, but premium members receive bonuses that usually only premium MicroMembers usually have, though still not quite as many. In addition those premium Sony Burger members get a weekly coupon book that has larger discounts than normal coupons along with some free burger coupons.

So while MicroBurgers still has the nicer lobby and more consistent burgers you have to pay $5 for that lobby while Sony Burgers has more variety, a free to everyone lobby, and a $4 premium service that makes that lobby almost as nice as MicroBurgers while saving you money.

Just for future reference, if you need 4 paragraphs to iron out an analogy, then it isn't any good. My short and simple analogy that applied directly to the logic being used by the guy I was responding to is infinitely superior than... that depressing thing you just posted.

Saying Live should be free because PSN is free is fantasy logic that doesn't apply to the real world.

 I told you your analogy was terrible didn't I. The way I explained it is far more accurate and not misleading. It stands more firmly with the truth. It's length and complexity is testimate to its accuracy and by no means is simplification superior when it comes to conveying truth, only when manipulating others. Even if your analogy was correct or logical, it is so reduced that it withholds fact and manipulates reason due to the lack of knowledge it contains. A non curious mind can easily fail to know the truth on the subject and accept that innacuracy as their perceived truth.

I did not say Live should be free because PSN is free, only that Live needs to provide enough value to justify a fee. Live's justification is waning due to PS Plus and the improvements of PSN. Value varies among people, and with the gap between Live and Plus shrinking Live needs to evolve or risk consumer acceptance. It would be great if Live adds more features or provides more features for free. Either way they need to compete, or it will stand to lose.

The way you "explained" it was needlessly long and irrelevant. It's a great read though, hilarious. And I don't really care about what you said regarding Live, my post that you quoted was in response to this comment from someone else:

If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc)

So yeah, my analogy works perfectly fine, thanks. What you get from one business does not mean you automatically get the same thing from another business. It's not hard. And lol @ comparing PS+ to XBL. Also, do you have any sort of credible source regarding some "shrinking" gap between Live and PSN? And your entire post can pretty much just be trimmed down to "value varies among people" and that's all that needs to be said and has been said many times in this thread already.

"If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc.)"

There isn't anything wrong with this sentiment, you just seem to think that it would require the service to degrade perhaps? Say Live decided to free up online multiplayer and provide other features as its reason to get Live Gold. That they decided to continue providing the dedicated 1st party servers which would ensure their quality control. Would that be a bad thing? If Live could add exclusive features to still make it worth having Gold while at the same time competing for value against competitors like PSN? Or do you think that impossible?

If you play both XBL and PSN you might notice that both services are very similar, PSN having made leaps and bounds over the years. Despite dedicated 1st party servers 3rd parties and PSN has been able reach a level of quality. Let's entertain the thought of that quality being on par with XBL, even if you think its not. What if PSN reaches the same level as XBL, how will it compete for consumers? I say, there are few routes, free some things up, provide more features, or a mixture of both.

Even if you feel that XBL and PSN are not equal in online quality, there are those who do feel so and that can dip into the XBL consumer base. I've played on both services, and they feel far more equal to me than perhaps you feel they do. If that perception becomes more common and it most likely will since PSN has been improving over the years while XBL sits on diminishing returns of server quality, the services are becoming more equal. That is true, as servers can only provide such a quality as to have everything run smoothly. Once things are running smoothly there is no where else to go, so PSN is in fact catching up to XBL as PSN has been improving. The only space left for XBL to showcase any superiority is to provide additional features but as one of its main feature (online multiplayer) is equalled by a free service it is harder to justify having it under the pay method. So XBL should be advancing in one of the directions I mentioned, either provide more for its free Live users or make their Gold Live more valuable to handle creeping competition.

I don't see your analogy working since you use two different quality burgers that both still cost money. That anlogy is better suited towards home console games vs handheld games as your analogy is more about quality to price rather than pay service to free service.

Nah I never said Live would degrade. Would it be a bad thing for Live to free up multiplayer while continuing to be just as good? No. Why would anyone say it would be? But why would MS want to do that when they have a service that millions of people are glad to pay for? Would it be bad for Sony to make PS+ free? No. That would be great for PS3 owners. But it's not realistic or logical.

There's no point in entertaining the thought that the two services are equal simply because they aren't. PSN improving "leaps and bounds" is still a far cry from XBL. And it's been said many times in this thread there are people who feel the services are close enough to warrant not paying for XBL. That's fine, more power to them. You might think they need to include more to hold off competition but reality doesn't mesh with that sentiment. By the way, what's your source for PSN creeping up on XBL Gold? And are you talking strictly number of users? Because I have 5 PSN accounts on one PS3. You're talking a business approach so I'd expect something substantial in terms of evidence that PSN is making Sony money that is creeping closer and closer to what MS makes off Live.

The burgers costing money is entirely irrelevant. The part that actually matters is you have two competing companies offering similar products for different prices. You can't expect company A to match company B when company A has a product that is superior, so much so that millions have been shown to have no problem paying a premium price for it.

Sorry to interject, but you're asking for a source but it seems neither of you have defined what the source is for or how it should be measured.

If it's your earlier comment that insinuated that X-box Live is superior in multiplayer to PSN then that would require an article that's actually measured lag, ping and number of disconnects over a wide range of geographical locations and over a wide range of games. I don't think one exists