LOL.  At least I haven't been hit by one of those iPod/iPhone ads in a while.  Those things will scare the crap out of me sometimes.

1) They're about equal. Top Spin is more realistic

2) Only for Virtua Fighter boys, I'm a Tekken fan. There are probably more Tekken fans, and Tekken is better. Yes, you get Tekken 6, but mark my words it will be an inferior version. Besides, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

3) Oh, what an achievement! Tony Hawk hasn't been great since Underground. American Wasteland was pretty good, but everything that came afterwards is crap

4) Such as? How does more games having online mean you have to pay for it?

5) FAR higher? You named three games, one of which has a multiplat direct equivalent, one of which has an exclusive direct equivalent and one of which sucks.

So, you're paying 50 bucks a year for those?

LOL.  Right after I posted this, I got hit by the Gillette commercial.

As a person who's owned both at some point, I can honestly say that Xbox Live is superior to the PS3.

I've been told by people on here that 360 is Peer to Peer and PSN is a server. Well, I ACTUALLY PREFER PEER TO PEER.

As an Australian gamer, I've been in multiple matches in CoD4 where the host is american (or another country) and all the other players were Australian (unlucky Australian gets into the room, game adds every other Australian looking for a match just because that person is in that room). So we end up with a match of all reds and 1 green. That never happened on XBL.

How does it not have anything to do with the topic at hand? You have Virtua fighter 5 on PS3 but no multiplayer, Yes, you have Tekken, good for you, we have Dead or alive 4, good for us.

I enjoy playing multiplayer on the games that i have for XBLA and as i said, for a measly £35 a year i get a FAR HIGHER selection of games that have online multiplayer (regardless of peoples opinions on the quality of the games)

You like PSN, good for you, i personally think that PSN games like wipeout, Mortal kombat 2, tekken ect suck compared to Ikaruga, Castle crashers, Ultimate mortal kombat 3, Rez HD , Streets of rage 2 and Duke nukem 3D ect

Each to their own huh.

Yes I think it is that simple.  And that is what I don't agree with.  The developer and Microsoft should be the ones to foot the bill not the consumers.  That cost should have already been included in the console/game cost.  All those that pay for Live and are championing how superior it is if you had the choice between a free service equivalent to that on PS3 or the service you get now for $50 would you go for the free or the PS3 type service?  I would suggest that out of every 10 people that say they would pay the $50 1 is being honest, 8 are liars and the other is blinded by fanboyism.

F*cking bullsh*t !

Where is SONY with the cost of everything integrated into the price of the plateform ? Behind everybody !

The opposition to XBL keeps coming with the same argument that makes Sony loosing its status of leader on the gaming market. Wake up !

We can argue about the price, inside or outside the TCO of the 360 but the fact remains : XBL is the best solution for online console gaming. It actually brought something to the plateform.

Now to see if it should be hidden into the cost of something else in the futur well maybe, I don't know ...

Online gaming will always be a cost to somebody, and to pay a cost you need margin to be generated on the products.

Microsoft decided to make a separate cost for that so offline player don't pay the bill direclty, and the enthousiam of the market generates the effort to be put on the features of XBL. What is wrong with that ?

You know, for someone that wants devs to lower the price of their games you sure love supporting something that can make them more expensive.  :-p

You do realise there is another console manufacturer other than Microsoft and Sony?  Their console is the cheapest to make and it comes with built in wireless and comes with free online.  And they are far ahead of either Mircosoft or Sony and will probably outsell them combined before the end of the first half of next year.

What is wrong with Microsofts approach is I want to be able to play multiple player games online without having to pay £50 a year for that.  By not offering a free service it means while I can enjoy games like Brawl and Mario Kart online for free I will probably never play any 360 games online because I don't see why I should pay Microsoft that amount for something I am receiving free elsewhere. 

So then you're implying that hosting and maintaining servers for PS3 games doesn't cost money?

Interesting...