I take issue with the price raise not out of general expense or principal alone, but value based on my extremely limited time due to a busy life. I can play video games only now and again, most often just a single player romp when I'm relaxing. I look at even $50 a year as a waste because I do not use that online play enough to justify the cost, especially when included is a whole "community" of junk I care nothing about (Facebook, Twitter, Avatars, Party Chat, Achievments, ESPN, chat, ect.). All I would like to do is every once in a while pop in Halo, for example, and play online. If I could play a "multiplayer" battle with bots, I'd even go for that! As I said, I'm quite busy so playing with friends is not really feasible for me like several years go, so friends-related features do not apply for me.
If I played 15-35 minutes online only several times a month for $60 per year on top of the game's original cost, it's a waste when a single player game for just the $60 and play that any time that I want, no extra Xbox Live fee, and no hyperactive, cursing pre-teens screaming.
In the case of someone such as myself, it does not even come down to X amount per month; it becomes a flat, upfront sixty dollars that could have gone towards something that I would get more use out of for several years like some small appliance, music, workout equipment, or even just groceries (sustenance for crying out loud). Even with my PS3, I have not even gotten to the PSN yet because I'm still enjoying all of the single player gameplay I have at my fingertips. So I think it's safe to say that my above example of several times a month for online play is, if anything, an exaggeration of what would likely arise. The only thing that the 360 offers to me for an interesting online game would maybe be Halo and my old copy of COD 4.
