I think you missed my point; I'm not saying Sony has a 'superior' online service by whatever unstated intangible definition of quality the OP decided to use to assess quality.
I'm saying that XBL is - in the ways I listed - worse with a subscription fee than it could have been without.
Do you honestly think the amount of players playing any given title would not receive at least a small bump in numbers if there were no fees to play online?
Do you think publishers would be more or less open to keeping servers running if it wasn't costing them money while they see some other company making money from that online service?
You can name the number of cross platform titles on the 360 on one hand, and they were all released when MS were laughably attempting to charge PC gamers to play online; what do you think the reason is that there are no titles that are cross platform between consoles?
LAN / system link play has been massively reduced in supported titles since the original Xbox. Do you think the use of Kaillera and other tunnelling apps to provide online without fees might have affected that on its successor?
When I talk about F2P titles I am not talking about PS+ rentals or shitty Doritos advergames; I am talking about the free to play gaming space of titles like WorldOf Tanks, Battlefield Play4Free, TF2, etc whose business model relies on high player turnover funded by the small percentage willing to pay.
An online subscription fee just to access the title is actively harmful to their business model, so you don't get them at all.
Live being a paywall service has more costs than just the monetary subscription.