Anyone that is saying "My dear sony would never charge me..." or " Microsoft will never let up their iron grip..." needs to understand how corporate rivalry works.

If sony had the same product which was free and it was impacting console sales and revenue for microsoft...there is no way Microsoft could charge for it. Why do you think they loose money on hardware?

The issue is that most of the people understand they are getting more with Xbox live therefore the price is justified. If sony managed to convince the general public that their PSN service was just as good and and it remained free...Microsoft would have to make xbox live gold membership free. There should be 0 confusion about that.

I personally believe that for the xbox720, online play will be free as its becoming a key aspect for every game. There still will be a fee to xbox live...but I don't think online play will be part of the gold membership anymore...as long a Sony keeps it free as well.

They should port second life to live lol.

I don't have any issue with paying for live. Its a really good service. I'd rather that microsoft countered with more services to compete with home then make it free to be honest.

 Munkeh is correct

no all main features in home will be free; games; chat; game launching; company rooms; some furniture; your own space; some clothes; trophies.

 What isnt free is some clothes, bigger spaces for your crap, some furnature.

I dont think Sony will ever charge for PSN, atleast not for PS3, it's the one thing they can say when a fanboy goes "XBL is wayy better", they say "Shut up Noob at least I dont have to pay $100 a year for PSN!".

And I doubt MS will make XBL free, they get lots of money from it.

Sony's concept of free online and Home up to this point looks to be based on a the good old bait and switch technique. i.e.- let everyone in/give something away for free and then sell all the extras once they get there/ committed to fully enjoying the experience. I like this idea and think if properly implemented, Sony's online and home model will offer a far larger revenue steam than the tradition fee for service model that Microsoft has set up.

On the other hand, the perceived value of something free is definitely less than something you have to pay for, and even if Sony eventually matches or counters the features of Live, they have a lot of mind share to make up for in this area. (market the fact the online and home are free and gamers will come, continue to treat it like another side note on the every growing list of features and they won't.)

 its $50s a year

anyways we have more then that. The PSN Store looks better.

@ssj2

I saw a 3 month subscription at walmart and it was $30.

Microsoft and Sony both follow the loss leading strategy. Microsoft's online plan reflects this. Sony's online plan does not reflect this. Microsoft uses revenue from Lives Gold membership to defer the costs of loss leading. Sony uses their online service as a free feature to attract consumers to buy their hardware.

One of these strategies is working the other is not. Can you guess which one. Microsoft could well earn four or five billion dollars this generation from their live service. More then sufficient to cover their initial hardware losses. Sony on the other hand is providing the service free which is another expenditure that must be factored into the loss leading strategy. They lose on hardware, they must support a free service, and it doesn't appear that the software is covering either of these losses.

Microsoft will probably charge for their service into perpetuity. Why turn a revenue stream that could help them loss lead with hardware into something that makes the entire endeavor more expensive not less so. Sony will probably eventually start to charge for their service. For all the discussion about micro transactions and advertising revenue deferring the costs. The reality is that consumers are fickle. There is only so much you dqn push before they decide they are being swindled.

They will probably phase it in gradually one small feature at a time, and then one day you will find a exclusive membership level available. They will probably call them service packages. Then before you know what is happening your free service is suddenly a charged service.

 i thought it was $5 a month with a bonus of 2 months free ($50). M$ jacked up the price it seems.

 That's just the thing though. Everyone that touts that XBL is SOOOO much better talk about how the marketplace is better, or that friends can invite you at anytime, or better communit, when PS fans talk about it being $50 a year. But X360 fans, at least most fo them, don't realize that those services ARE free, all with an XBL silver account. It's only when you drop that $50 that you can actually play games, and in that sense, XBL is no better than PSN, when comparing XBL's cost to PSN being free. That's all there is to it. If XBL were free, sure, I would concede and say it was better. But the fact that the $50 doesn't go to having a great integrated friends list, or being able to message, or having a great marketplace (because Silver users have that functionality), but rather is the fee to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAMES ONLINE is the reason I and many others say it's not worth it to pay.

@Gebx

XBL doesn't have dedicated servers. Otherwise, you would have never had that fiasco over this past Christmas where Live went down, and no 360 users could play ANY games. Not one.

Another advantage of PSN ;)