The "pay for play" online system helps subsidize the costs of both the PS4 and running PSN.  This is why M$ charging for XBL from day 1 was a smart decision and one of the major reasons why the 360 has been so successful in the west.

Sony fans took pleasure in mocking Xbox gamers for paying to play online, but for most of the gen the 360 clearly had the superior online infrastructure, and in fact they still do if you put aside the deep Steam-like discounts offered by PSN Plus, which was only implemented in the first place as consolation for the PR disaster that resulted from the network getting hacked and millions of people having their personal info stolen.

I'm not sure how effective that card is, but at this point, they need to use every card they've got.

I see it as uneccessary considering they would have gotten a great number of subscribers for PS+ by offering the great discounts (as on PS3), free games and Gaikai. That's a great value package, but unless every game is going to have dedicated servers, it leaves a sour taste. At least apps and free 2 play titles will be accessible to non-subscribers, but I still see it as wholly uneccessary.

Also, if Steam can be both profitable and free, what exactly have Valve done and why are both MS and Sony not managing to do it?

Well don't forget, Valve isn't spending billions to develop, manufacture and support a proprietary game console like Sony and M$ are both doing (of course that may change if "Steam Box" ever becomes a reality), nor do they have to spend tons of money running and supporting a closed online platform like XBL or PSN.

All Steam really is is just an online hub for digital distribution of software that also functions as Valve's centralized way to update and support all of their games.

Why do people keep saying this?  I've played Ninja Gaiden and Call od Duty and the experience was pretty seemless.  And it has Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, a great browser (leagues ahead pf the one on Xbox 360 and PS3), it lets you video chat with the controller, it has Miiverse, and a pretty decent online store.  You can't download trailers like on PS3 and 360 and there's usage limits on demos.  Not a lot of people have mics, either.  Regardless, the online I've experienced was decent.  If it were up to Xbox standards, that would be great but it's almost up to PS3 circa 2008 standards.

A) I think it's pretty shitty (not to mention unnecessary) for Sony to sneakily play the "gotta have a PS Plus account if you want to play online" bit. That being slid under the door with all of the "AWESOME" E3 info, really pissed me off.

B) YES. Absolutely, I think with the position Nintendo is in especially, it's imperative that they have something as valuable as free online play for their console, as a reason people might be attracted to buy one. It's a perk that they can't afford to discard, and I would be really pissed if they also decided to go the "pay to play" route. Because to ME, I've already spent $60 on a fucking game. I don't feel I should have to pay MORE money just to play it online.

They are indeed the only ones with free online gaming. For people that don`t want to pay to play online or can`t spend that much per year in games, it would be really attractive.

Finish your ads with that message - done in the right way, of course - and it could help change how people perceive Wii U.

a $599 price tag didnt help the Ps3

why not?

What makes you think Valve don't have to spend all that money on a relatively closed online system? It's nearly as closed as you can get on PC, has dedicated servers for numerous games, cloud support for storage and pretty much all the features that the console online systems currently have via Steamworks (matchmaking, achievements, DLC, community features, anti-cheat, built in voice chat, cross-platform play etc.). They even host all the mod work that goes on in Steam workshop. There are just as many features that require the network infrastructure if not more, yet it's still free.