i wont pay to play as i don't play that much. i would pefer to play a good single player game then a spend half my life playng cod and the other half sleeping.

I already do,so I vote yes. lol

No, for many of the reasons stated above. I'd prefer that companies allow users to host servers rather than charge for us to use their servers. I really don't play online enough to justify the costs. I haven't played online since my wireless router bit the dust and it is not like I'm dying to play online again.

This is part of the reason why I love Nintendo games. They focus on local game play first. Sure, online is nice, but it should always be secondary unless you are making a game that relies on having more than 4 people playing (FPS for example).

I played WoW for years - so: yes!

But I wouldn't pay for PSN or XBL, since I don't play "normal" games online.

I already pay my ISP to play online, why would I pay again?

I would suggest because your ISP has nothing to do with the game servers?

Would I?  Why yes, yes I would.

Agree. I find acceptable to pay when choosing the option to play on servers that maintain massive multiplayer persistent worlds, but unacceptable to be forced to pay anything else than my ISP fee to play any game online. Whenever having users to host servers for free is a viable solution, I pretend to have that option. If SW houses offer premium services for a fee it's fine for me, but it must not be mandatory to play online on pay servers unless having a persistent world is part of the essence of the game.

No for me...

I didn't have a problem paying for MMOs when I'd mostly play one, and play it a lot. But I rarely play online now, it would be a waste of my money. And tbh, the only online play I can sustain for long are MMOs, but I'm too easy to get too addicted to them so I'm not starting one again. For the rest I'm happy with SP, occasional MP is alright, but if I have to pay to use it occasionally, then I'd rather not use it at all.