While I am not thrilled by it, PS+ has made it worth the $50 a year, which in the grand scheme of things, it really is not that much. For the price of one game, I get literally hundreds of them to try out.

I can see some of the arguments people are making against your point... and I can't say that I disagree with either side. Although I think I'm more in your corner. I don't like that I'm paying for something that was previously offered for free... Although it is slightly improved and offers a little more, is it worth $300 bucks over a 5 year span? Ehhh maybe since it is split up into year or monthly segments.. makes it a little easier to digest paying only $50 one time a year. If you can't afford $50 a year, you have a hobby that is going to cause you a lot of financial hardship. But like I said, I agree I hate how paying is now the norm.. I do like the PS+ perks they are worth the admission price.. but the fact that you HAVE to get that just to play online.. that's a scary trend.

I see it as a necessary evil.

PS+ is currently the only subscription model on PlayStation. As it was last gen (7th), it barely supported the PS3 and PSP/VITA and could barely compete with XBL.

Simply increasing the price of PS+ would not only fail to help the situation, because at best they would have the same number of subscribers they had at PS+'s peak last gen, but it would also cost them more money in the long run because they would lose customers.

With the PS4's new, more rigrous network features, keeping the model from last gen would jeapordize the company as a whole. Which is worse for consumers then making them pay for multiplayer. Not to mention, make it fiscally impossible to compete against Microsoft's network features.

Every one who uses the network features of PS3, PSVITA, and PS4 would be at serious risk for fatal network failure, something much worse than 50$ a year.

Its easy to get mad or mock that a once free service (multiplayer) is now premium, but it is also naive to think that it is a simple cash grab.

In fact, I could apply the same defense for Microsoft, except that XBL had more time to establish itself so it should be cheaper than ps+ since it has most of the same features, but locks extraneous ones behind an archaic paywall.

That is the main difference between PS+/XBL and PC/Nintendo. PS+ and XBL are supporting their entire respective online ecosystems. PS+ is in fact carrying PSN on PS4. PS3. and VITA. Conversly, Nintendo's scaled back infrastructure only supports the Wii U and 3DS, and on PC, its either hosted privately, or at such little cost that it can be subsidized by the intial purchase and dlc.

You don't have to like it, I personally don't but its not something that was decided lightly.

Its necessary, revenues from AAA games could go down considerably this gen, they need another stream of revenue to sustain business if the worst happens, but if the industry stays healthy, the money will be used for more games or other things that will benefit us.

Yes, people were creaming their pants when Microsoft revealed their DRM and were praying to God Sony has it too!!

I am not gonna say paying to play online is good or even ok, but if I had to choose between paying to use PSN+/Xbox live or using a free nintendo's ''network'', I'd lash out my 50 bucks right away

I don't play online really that much so I won't pay for it. I didn't even play online all year. Last time I played was when Doom 3 BFG came out and that was only for a month.

I'm glad Sony still lets you use the store and Netflix unlike Microsoft.