A lot of the answers here are probably related to how important mulitplayer is to people. I'm much more into single player campaigns but still enjoy mulitplayer to a lesser extent. So for me the value of xbox live is reduced as I'm only an occasional user and it seems like poor value especially as I can play multiplayer on ps3, pc and wii for free. Clearly if multiplayer is much more important to you then xbox live will seem better value.

This generation I can see the point of psn when I get a ps4. I guess as soon as I get a ps4 I will subscribe to psn for online plus all the extra included games for my ps4, ps3 and vita. Great value.

In contrast Xbox one is a console that I know will have restricted functionality because I won't be subscribing to xbox live and the value of the console to me is massively reduced because of it.

PS4's online cost is only acceptable to me because of all the ps3, ps4 and vita added value games etc, without that the PS4 would have been perceived by me much more negatively as I resent paying for online gaming.

@bold, This, when you consider that the system is going to cost you 100euros more out of the box than a Ps4, knowing full well in advance that you're going to have to pay another 50euros each year to access things like youtube on it... means if you're going to want an X1 for the next 5-7 years and will use it for your sitting room entertainment system or even hope to look something up on the net on that system the total price of it is 750-850euros over its life.

I'm still mad that we need to pay a fee to play games online. Even if it is $10

Been playing WoW since its launch, Paying for online is perfect imo. If a company tries to ask me to pay money to use another companies service then I'd have issues, like if you pay for a netflix account you also need to pay for gold to watch that account on a Microsoft console. I find the funniest part is Sony not putting skype behind a paywall on the PSVita.