As a Ps3 owner, and never had Xbox 360

Xbox live.
Castle Crashers wtf!And much better friend system.

Castle crashers and Braid coming to PSN has strengthened PSN's library no doubt.

But with games like Duke Nukem 3D (With online story and Dukematch multiplayer) REZ, Ikaruga, Splosion man, Soul calibur, Doom, Ultimate mortal kombat 3 (mortal kombat 2? bah), Goematry wars, Virtual ON OT, Plenty of Sega games pretty much all with online multiplayer (Streets of rage 2, soon ALL 4 classic sonics, Golden axe ect) Pac-Man championship edition, Escape from monkey island and many more, plus many great games on the way via the summer of arcade......... XBL games still rule supreme for me.

Seems like the biggest problem for the PSN is still the lack of cross game chat, is it seriously that important?

Whats really so great about this feature, seems like I can live without it, I dought I'd ever use it even if the PSN had it?

Wiiware and Virtual Console is the superior version.

Wiiware & Virtual Console>XBOX Live>PSN

Having both and being somewhat biased towards the PS3, Id say:

Innovative games and unique titles goes to PSN by far

Online communication and System integration goes XBL

community aspect is tied in my opinion, I unlike most people here enjoy home and have made friends on home, lately the updates give to home has made it a greater place to be on. XBL has XBL prime time which currently features 1 VS 100 which is a great community show that pushes XBL high up there, but Home really really does give the community aspect on PSN a huge boost, sadly the integration with HOME and the actual system is not good, therefore I say they are tied. If home had cross game chat(with HOME and PS3 games) and if the game integration was better, I would give the community features to PSN.

Live, but it costs $50, so micrsoft is obviosly going to try and update it as much as possible. PSN is free and Sony updates a couple times a week. What im getting at is XBL is obviosly better at the moment BECAUSE microsoft profits off it. If PSN was better, why would anyone pay $50 A YEAR for Live?

Yes you can  live without it, but the feature is AMAZING, honestly I was skeptical until I actually got XBL and a 360.. It really makes PSN look somewhat inferior.

That and the XBL market place having screen shots for every game, its on page for every game and what not.. PSN does not have that.

Maybe I don't understand this feature, all you can do is just talk to your friends while playing the same game right?

And doesn't the PSN have a trailer for every game for the PSN?, I was just looking through it today and I checked like 3 or 4 games and each one had a 'Preview' option and it brouht up a streaming trailer.

I consider the ability to play over the net (especially P2P) with other people as basic online play. I don't care for chat or text or anything other than just connecting and playing.

I mainly play Guitar Hero online and that is just me + one other person playing against each other. If that isn't considered "basic online play" then I don't what is.

PC is in this discussion for me because as I said I can play Diablo 2 for free with plenty of people. I can play Smash Bros. and Mario Kart with plenty of people and I can play Killzone 2, LittleBIGPlanet, Guitar Hero, etc... on my PS3 with plenty of other people absolutely free.

So in my situation what incentive is there for me to pay $40 a year just to game online the same exact way I do now?

Please, by all means go ahead.

Without question, Xbox Live is better.