Why do I need to own the games if I can play them forever? Plenty of people are fine with getting to play a game forever for just $1. Rental or not, it's amazing value.

Also, are you sure it's the same people? I don't think it is.

I'm currently in the same boat. In almost 2 years of owning a PS4 (and 4 years paying for PS+), i have only actively played online on a PS console once (about 80 hours in TLOU:R's online). Almost all of my online gaming is done on PC, but i pay for PS+ because i think it's worth it.

I do feel like PS+ isn't quite as good right now as it once was (though i suspect things will improve on the PS4 end over time), but even now i still think it's well worth it. While i support those that vote against it with their wallets, as long as Sony continue to justify PS+ to be as an independent product, i'll keep paying for it.

Achievement? Some of the responses in this thread are baffling! All throughout the last generation people would constantly praise Sony for offering free online gaming and criticize Microsoft for charging for Gold. Now, Sony charges for online play and they are praised? Really? I fully applause MS and Sony for offering a paid-for service which offers value in the terms of extra content and games but this?

Also, the amount of people stating this is somehow Microsoft's fault is incredible. Who charges for online play on Playstation? Sony. Who pays for it? The consumer. The only two parties to blame is Sony for implementing it and the consumer for voting with their wallet and accepting it. If you view the practice as bad, then you should vote with your wallet, not buy XBL and when Sony do the same, also refuse to buy PS+. You can't blame another company for implementing a service first. It's like... Costa change their recipe and you complain. Then you go to Starbucks and praise them for doing the same!? No. You refuse to buy Starbucks too until one of them changes it back to how you used to like it.

People really need to stop blindly praising practices these businesses make. The ONLY reason Sony charge for PS+, and the same for XBL is because they can and it makes them lots of money. Despite what you think, neither company gives a dime about your 'online satisfaction' unless it generates them profit.

Does PS+ and XBL gold offer value which is good for the consumer? Arguably, yes, but as an optional product. Forcing you to pay to access half of the console's features and play your games online should not be viewed as an 'Achievement' but rather anti-consumerism.

Let me answer your question with another question:  Did you read what I said?

The point is that with "free" games on PS+ the minute your subscription runs out they are no longer free and you need to either renew your subscription for $50/yr in order to play it for "free" or purchase the game outright to play it again, whereas with XBL any game that you've downloaded for free as part of Games With Gold is tied to your account and is yours forever even if you stop paying for a Gold membership.

I would like to have the Online free like last generation . PS Plus games are garbage, unlike last generation. If they offer same type of games as last generation, I would sub for PS Plus as I did for PS3.

However, PS Plus now turned to be an Indie garbage collector.

The Slogan for PS Plus should be PS Plus: Home of Garbage Indies

Was it hard to figure out my answer was yes? It's pretty simple, I don't remember paying a cent for the free games themselves.

 You pay for every "free" game... in the form of a subscription to PS+...

The only trophy they get from me is that this gen Sony did everything right in terms of perception.
Many people are amazingly happy with everything Sony does while many things MS does results in "nobody cares", "shitty move" and so on.
And this is not just speaking of the launch of the consoles.
It is about the introduction of BC where people argue they didn't care about it ever but don't argue while this would perhaps be different when you can still play games online and that digital releases also a new variable.
Then the outrage that MS bought TR - they didn't even buy it completely, it is only a timed exclusive. Arguing this has been done before for TR (thus making it not appear on *any* other console) or for other games (timed exclusivity) nobody cares about anymore.
Sony just do it right - SF5? "We help making the game". Sure, they do. But they are also paying for making it exclusive to the console. But they do it in a smart way, the perception is that they are still "the good guys".
Add to this that they have a large community behind them which just like Sony. Which is totally ok and somehow deserved as Sony delivers with games, always. But even they are just a company with money in mind, they just do better PR this gen.

Paying for online, though? Yes, the service is expensive, and money has to come back. Sony had to do this, they want to get money off it, not paying extra money. Especially bandwidth cost for them are a lot higher this gen because of way bigger downloads, a trend that people decide to buy more games digital and huge patches. Such a service can't be free for them.
But again, we can see a different perception here:
People here said that they bought PS+ before so they just went on paying (and this just shows that this is a dedicated forum - the rise in PS+ subscriptions can't be justified by the free games, like at all).
So Sony did good because they introduced PS+ last gen and added online gaming to that service.
But "shitty" MS made you pay for online before (which also resulted in a way better online service) and they "only" copied the free games that Sony offered.
Difference: perception.

Hardly. Try Amiibo. Nintendo has adults buying multiple toys, sometimes even duplicates that have been dipped in paint.