I actually agree with him.
Sure on a personal level it would suck having to pay extra money, but I can totally understand it from a business perspective and I think it would be good for the entire industry for a 2 key reasons.
Multiplayer heavy games (Halo, COD etc) would get more and better content additions if there was a subscription free. Right now there is no extra income coming in from a released game aside from the occasional DLC. So what is the incentive for a developer to keep working on content for a game after it's release? There is no reason. So what happens? They rush out another sequel, COD I'm looking at you, so that they can get another infusion of cash. A lot of people were disappointed in MW2 compared to MW1. Wouldn't it have been better if instead of working on MW2 they just added missions and multiplayer content to the first one? Right now people are spending 60 bucks a year on each new COD, that's already 5 bucks a month.
The second reason is it would help games that DON'T have a multiplayer component, or a really poor one. I think one of the downfalls of this generation is that all games seem to be pressure into including some sort of online component, even if the game doesn't suit or require it. That means dev time is taken away from polishing the single player game to slap together some sort of online content and neither benefits. If developers don't they risk losing sales as, like he said, why would someone buy a 10-15 hour game like Enslaved which has no multiplayer instead of COD which they'll play for 200 hours due to the multiplayer? They see the first game as not "getting their money's worth".
My 2 cents.
