Come on...Anybody can make these arguements.

And article creator?    Seriously?    It's a blog.  They're not that reliable.

Paying for a superior service is not a problem for me, especially when it affects my experience with all of the games that I buy in a positive way. Your argument is like saying that I should have Freeview instead of paying for cable TV, then I could afford to buy more DVDs, but Freeview sucks compared to cable and I'll buy whatever DVDs I like anyway. If you can't afford to pay for Live and buy all of the games you want to buy, perhaps you need to look for more lucrative employment.

No, restaraunts aren't busy running around putting back massagers in seats.  It would be fitting if Microsoft had left their service at the level it was in the Xbox era but they've enhanced it considerably since then.

Fantasist scenarios? Hahaha. I pay for Live because it's better than PSN. I own a PS3 where I could be playing games for free, but I still choose to pay for Live and I use it loads more than PSN, which should tell you something. The argument that I could be buying 1 more game a year is irrelevant as I can afford to buy any games that I like. I'm not saying that to brag, but out in the real world where people have jobs and earn money, stuff like that really happens you know!

The restaurant analogy is complete fail. Lets try this one. The Anitvirus program market.
Now, PSN is like the free version of PC tools Spyware doctor. It works pretty good, but it doesn't have all the bells and whistles. XBL is like the paid version of Spyware doctor. It has realtime protection and a deeper scan setting. For some people, the free version is all they need, others want more, so they pay for the enhanced version.

People are making analogies and such, but the bottom line is this: Value is in the eye of the beholder. If millions of people (myself included) are willing to pay $50 a year for LIVE, then Microsoft isn't overcharging.

And, despite your well articulated arguments, I (and I'm sure there are others) have a PS3 and a 360. I MUCH PREFER the 360 online experience over the Playstation experience. Just because one is free doesn't detract from the quality/value of the other.

/my two cents

This analogy works better if you say that Live and PSN have the same antivirus capabilities, but you pay for live because it came in a shiny box with a bell.... and whistle.

That would be a lie though. If they had the same capabilities then PS3 fanboys wouldn't have plastered EA's forums with death threats when they thought that they were responsible for the PS3 not having a feature that the 360 has had all along. Decent communication and invite/join options aren't bells and whistles. They're core features that are part of what makes Live worth paying for. PSN is patchy and inconsistent and relies a lot on developers implementing certain online features into games that are present in every game on Xbox Live. It took Guerilla 2 patches before they added an "invite someone from your friends list" feature to Killzone 2 for example.

You are absolutely correct. I went about my analogy wrong. Let me put it this way. PSN is like Free antivirus software programs, they work fine, but do not catch everything, and the realtime protection is limited. XBL is like the Antivirus programs you pay for, they are rock solid, have full realtime protection, and do full sweeps. Now, both work, one just works better and is worth the money you put into it. PSN and XBL do NOT have the same capabilities. They both do what they are supposed to. One just does a better job, and it should because people have to pay for it.

"If you're good at something, never do it for free." -the Joker