I hear this sentiment frequently, and it always makes me wonder if people just have really unreliable computers/software in their studio, or if their studios are unnecessarily sprawlingly huge with hardware that could have been effectively emulated in software. I'm of the opinion there is little in the available spectrum of sound design that is not available to me through the software on my Mac.
(The exception would be the mics and rooms available to high end studios, but given my fondness for old-timey recordings where a dozen players might be sharing a single mic, I'm a bit skeptical of the necessity of such luxuries.)
I'm not clear on what it is that makes people feel the need to have drastically different studio/live setups, and I'm entirely willing to concede this may simply be my own ignorance. My stage experience is pretty limited and has thus far not involved any of my electronic music at all, so I imagine there are a lot of unknown unknowns for me in that regard.
What I find a little disappointing about this is that it means the performer doesn't see the mastery of the instruments they used in the studio as necessary for the performance. Perhaps I have overly romanticized the notion that conceptually binds instrumentalist + performer so closely in my mind, but I don't go to shows to see the composer or the guy at the sound board. I go to see the musicians.
That's why I'm trying to pursue a setup that might reasonably work just as well at home as on stage, and vice versa, with a focus on making things happen in the here and now ("live" in the sense of "real time"). I feel this constraint can potentially eliminate this studio/live dichotomy. Basically, treat the studio as a live experience. Maybe I'll find I've been misguided by the time I have a set put together. It's early days for me in some ways.