Not sure how I feel about that ... I'd like to see companies succeed because they make a quality console and quality games that people want, not because they are being subsidized.
It would be interesting to see numbers on what each company has invested in infrastructure, maintenance, and the "free" games on offer. If they are making a huge profit on these services then I'd be less ok with it.
The investments aren't particularly big. The online subscriptions account for the majority of profit that Sony and Microsoft are bringing in. The margins are even higher than on the accessories which can already be argued to be overpriced.
There isn't much known about the payment structure for "free" games, but for PS+ there was an article a few years ago where developers commented on their experience of making games available for free. The consensus was that it is beneficial to them, because it gives exposure and increases chances for sales success for their next game/sequel and because their games were usually already at a point where they barely sold anything anyway. Sony apparently hands out a few cents per downloaded copy of a PS+ game, but since most subscribers don't download many of the "free" games, Sony pockets even more of the subscriber money than they already do to begin with. A subscriber who downloads all available games in a year might cost Sony about $5. Infrastructure and maintenance might add another $5-10, but it's really hard to imagine that Sony's costs are anywhere close to necessitate a yearly fee of $60.
For Microsoft it would be similar. There's a reason why Microsoft adopted the stance that their games have to be built around online multiplayer, because that is what drives subscriptions, and subscriptions have been the most profitable part of their console business by far.