is the big question?
Put simply, no, it won't*.
Do you for one minute think PSN+ wouldn't be compulsory if Sony hadn't been playing catch up for the majority of this gen? I completely agree that right now PSN+ is a much better deal monetary-wise but i don't for one minute think it's out of the kindness of their heart...?
Basic supply and demand, no? People are paying so MS won't change the price (see GoD for a good example). PS3 was really struggling at launch, as was the PSN hence why it was/is free. As the userbase grew they introduced PSN+. The paid version is still technologically and, imo, user interface/usability wise inferior - but they sweeten the deal (considerably) with a lot of free games stuff - which compared to MS's inclusion of adverts and apps i neither need nor use, inevitably attracts the green eyed monster... Everything i've read this last year suggests MS subs have gone up, not down, so would you lower the price in that instance? I'm more surprised the price hasn't gone up - but as someone else suggested in another thread, the inclusion of the adverts may well be negating any need for a price increase.
Having said all that, i think a 'two-tier' XBL offering where you can get just a games only/media only subscription for half the cost, or a full 'warts and all' package for regular/full price would be a great idea - for consumers - not sure the MS money counters would agree though. With the introduction of subscription based console purchases we may see some movement in this area though.*All my own opinion of course...