Sony has "pretty much" caught up? How you figure?
P.S. -- if I was going to call people idiot because I don't like their opinions or choices I might try not to make that position apparent in a rambling post that demonstrates a complete lack of appreciation for such niceties as punctuation or grammar or coherent structrure but go ahead and maintain the worst stereotypes of PS3 fanboys all you left out was 1337-speak and a RRoD joke as you make a fool of yourself for everybody to see but go ahead and if you missed it this extended sentence is what's known as mocking you before you jump in with "well you did it too".

It would certainly be nice to get it free, but "should" might be a bit too strong. MS is-and-has-been pouring some serious capital into XBL, and frankly I'd rather pay a straight yearly fee and get a near flawless network infrastructure (the debacle last year was the first time I can remember Live going down for more than a few hours, and I've been on the service since day one with the original Xbox) and hassle free support than get it free but either have to get bombarded with ads, nickel-and-dimed for things I need, or have them foist the costs of the service off onto some other entity.
Free is certainly better than fee . . . but I do think you get what you pay for.

I'm kind of curious what the nickel-and-dimeing is on XBL myself. Aside from the service itself (1 yearly fee, the single price of admission, so I don't think that qualifies). I''ve bought 1 gamerpic (because getting fragged by a pink kitten makes jerks cry), 2 custom themes (Family Guy and GeoW2 -- all other themes and gamerpics have been freebies), and games themselves from XBL since the service began. Given how humiliated Nick apparently should be for not seeing what Cargo was talking about, it must be fairly obvious and widespread.
To me, "nickel-and-dime" implies that you micro-transaction essential steps or actions to force the consumer to slowly bleed money. The only thing I "have" to pay for is the Gold service . . . and I assume you're not referring to that as "n-and-d". I don't think you mean charging for XBL games or content like shows or movies either . . . or let me say I hope you aren't, as in that case "this phrase you used . . . I do not think it means what you think it means."
Guess I'm as stupid as Nick, so please educate me. If I'm getting ripped off or bled for some coin, let me know so I can stop it. Cash is tight right now.

Here's a video of those 9 360 being sold, I guess:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/11/video-black-fri.html

This wasn't an isolated incident. I saw at least two other psuedo-riot videos on you-tube, at other locations, but they have apparently been removed (links no longer working).

Yes, the PS3 comes with WiFi and Blu-Ray, whereas the 360 does not. Of course, if my home isn't running on a WiFi router . . . then I don't need it. I've actually got my computer running on a wireless router, but run my 360 hardwired to the router -- I don't trust that there's no slowdown going wireless, and if I'm playing online I want to minimize lag as much as possible. So WiFi is for many consumers an unnecessary option -- one that adds to the cost of the unit. BLu-Ray is the same -- Its certainly a nice thing to have, but isn't a "must-have" feature for many game console purchasers, especially when its jacking up the hardware cost. Will more people switch to Blu-Ray over time? Probably. But given the glacial pace of Blu-Ray adoption so far, its not a dealbreaker for many consumers.
The lack of a harddrive is detrimental to be sure, and no argument that the cost for the MS endorsed units are unacceptable. But if you only need the HDD for gamesaves then a memory card would meet your needs, and that comes with the unit. Memory cards also allow you to bring your gamercard and gamesaves to a friends house to play on their 360 -- not an option for the PS3.
Also, the PS3 HDD is swappable, but that presumes the consumer wants to do the tech work -- something alot of serious electronics users often forget is most people are extremely uncomfortable with the thought of ripping open their console or computer and doing this sort of thing themselves. If you are so inclined . . . well, you can always swap a 2.5 SATA drive into the MS HDD enclosure. It is a (somewhat) more complex tech job than the PS3 swap, but a very do-able solution.
As you've pointed out, the PS3 comes completely loaded with everything you could ever need or want, even at the low-end SKU. Well, as long as you forget the HDMI cable to take advantage of that Blu-Ray player. You have to buy that seperate, right? Seems like that's something that is more necessary to consumers than WiFi. And a headset, assuming you don't have a bluetooth headset laying around. Online games work much better with a means of communicating. So that's another, what 70 dollars?
You have bought 5 360s and had 3 RRoDs? Even assuming you bought new 360 instead of having them fixed for free, that means you have 2 360s? If you did have them fixed (and unless you're modding them I can't comprehend why you wouldn't have them fixed for free), you have 5 360s? My hat's off to you -- that's some serious "I-can't-have-a-room-in-my-house-without-a-game-unit" dedication.

I'm not trying to be a MS apologist with these comments. RRoD is a huge, ugly black eye for the company. There are many aspects of MS that I don't support as a consumer. But the "PS3 is the perfect machine and 360 will give you AIDS" mentality is nothing short of rediculous. The PS3 is a good machine, and has its benefits -- but is far from perfect. RRoD is a miserable design flaw . . . but so is 256Meg system memory creating a massive bottleneck for programmers. A poorly designed motherboard can be fixed (and if the Jasper units are now hitting the market then it may well be a done deal). The memory bottleneck on the PS3 is unfixable, since any systems with more memory would have to be programmed for differently than the existing user base.

In the "console fanboy wars", I'm firmly in the MS camp, but I don't hate the PS3 . . . I hate Sony for the way they treated me with the PS2. The hardware itself is certainly competent and acceptable. I don't look down my nose at the PS3 owners. Why do Sony fans feel the need to piss on 360 owners?