I could maybe see unified fees by company or major brands working to some degree and in some markets (ie: EA Sports, COD, MoHun, etc), but game-by-game for anything but an MMORPG will never fly.

Well no, because Microsoft already does that. What would hurt would be subscriptions on individual titles.

Consumers hate it but they should be able to see the fairness of it.

It just isn't right that I get 200 hours of gameplay from an online game like Bad Company 2 for only $60 while a game for the same price like say Resident Evil 5 gives me only 20 hours of entertainment.

Simply put, 200 hours of gameplay is worth more than $60.

It's not worth it if people aren't willing to pa for it - so we'll see whether or not it's "fair", if this ever comes up.

Ive got to say the whole reason i did not pick up APB was due to extra fees. I pay for live to play online,get to deal with a vastly reduced field of cheaters/hackers vs what was happening on PCs, and pretty much any game i picked up was supported life of console.

now parts of this have been eroded E&A and other publishers have managed to shut down servers for what the see as older under performing games. i see this as a problem but not a deal breaker
a very few games charge monthly fees, but they do not at the time require live gold to play them. not a deal breaker yet but reduces the value of live, and restricts the growth opportunity of live.

if more games moved into this, i would stop buying and playing it would kill gaming for me. i would just keep playing the old game i have and enjoy and on relic system.
a solution i could see to this is a reworking of the live cost revenues and a slight bump in cost. say 10 - 15 dollars a year next generation, with Microsoft cutting developers a share based upon time played by users in the developers game.

the other solutions will just lead to fragmentation and harm of the gaming community

It would decrease the sales of said game, but would probably increase the sales of the next best competitor if it had free online. It would hurt xbox gamers the most considering they already have to pay to play online.

i game by it self is already expensive... i would not pay for play in any type of game... if they want more money work harder and make better games... i let the door open for them to charge one person if he spends more than 100 or 200 hours on-line and have to buy other 200 hour "code" but in your face out of the box pay to play? only if the game were free in the first place!

Well i never payed any subscription for a game like WOW. I only pay for xbox live and i personally dont like that either. I predict that if this appens only the huge games like halo and cod will benefit because people will most likely buy the game that has the most people on it..This might actually increase the sales of single player games too because more people might just want to stick with one multiplayer game for a while.

I wouldn't pay for them unless there were absolutly no other choice.

Online should just have a special acess code in the box for so many hours.  Buy a new copy if you run out of hours.  Sales go up.