Ok don't forget my name when the PS4 is out cuz I ain't forgeting urs :P

I know we are the consumers and should only identify with them, but what are the console manufacturer's to do?

I don't know the adoption statistics for PSN+, but it's safe to assume that Microsoft makes more money with Live and is at present the only manufacturer making a dime because of it.

The consumers demand high-def graphics, but don't want to know about it until it costs $400. So what else can they do? Surely we need them to profit to ensure a healthy industry, no?

Nintendo has a long history with online and network gaming dating back to the Famicom. Nintendo's reticence to go full bore behind online has more to do with profitability and less to do with experience. Nintendo has always been about profit and running a free online service in the vein of XBL is not profitable. Sony's situation is a testament to this.

Some people will turn anything into an excuse to take a jab at a rival console they happen to not like. A couple of things this journalist fails to mention ...

Yes, Microsoft asks for $40 per year (only idiots pay $60 since 12 month always goes on sale once per year to $40), but in exchange you get cross game chat thanks to the party system. I can not stress how useful this is (especially to achievement people like myself who like to coordinate events between groups of people who are often in several different games). I really don't know how people get by on PS3 without it. I got nothing against the system, but if it was my main console I would have to get something to communicate with others with like skype or, as some of my friends do, play on PS3 while having their Xbox turned on so they can party chat (lol).

I will admit that there really is no good reason why we can't play multiplayer without Gold, but it really doesn't matter to me as I would gladly pay the 40 dollars a year just for cross game chat. Besides, are you really going to go play multiplayer all by yourself with no friends/relatives/Live friends there to play with you? Sounds kind of boring to me. Is kind of like playing against a bunch of bots with each AI set to a random difficulty ... may as well just play singleplayer.

Maybe next gen things will be different, but it is irresponsible for a supposed video game journalist to pick a meaningless fight like this for hits while also completely ignoring the fact that Xbox Live and PSN are not on equal footing merely because the PSN has made great improvements since its abysmal start.

I hope you can still be happy when it stops being free. Or absent altogether, for that matter.

my point without me posting.  im still amaze at sony fanboys worrying about how live users spend THEIR money.  sony is bleeding giving shit away yall should be telling them sony please charge us so you can stay alive.

No, the worry is that subscription based online services become a standard across ALL platforms. I could care less on what or how you spend your money. Don't delude yourself. And what is so wrong about gamers looking out for other gamers? Not all people are out to get each other.

Why is this of any concern to those of you who don't like, own, or plan on owning the 360. Its really remarkable as to why anyone who doesn't own, hasn't owned, or doesn't plan on owning a 360 should care at all.

Back when I owned a 360, I payed for gold so I can play halo online. Its not like I happily gave away my money for gold. But it was something that I thought was worth the cost when the alternative was not getting to play halo online. Just like I'm willing to pay for dlc even if I don't like the fact that I'm paying to get content that might have been omitted from the game just so it can be sold later seperatly. Heck, for a year I had both a ps3 and 360 and I still payed for xbox live gold. Because I still thought it was worth it despite being able to play online games for free on the ps3.  Then when I got bored with halo reach, I just stopped updating my suscription and eventually sold my xbox.

So the truth is yes, it sucks that I'm paying to play online. But to me it was worth it because otherwise I didn't get to play halo online. And I really don't understand all the comments about "its the principle of things"... What the fuck are you talking about. What principles. It there some law of nature that states online gaming must be free. NO. Just like there are plenty of free to play mmos and suscription mmos, and you can decide which one you want to play and pay or not pay for. Its not like you are being forced to buy an xbox and pay for the service. If you want to play online and don't think 360 online exclusives are worth the extra cost, get a ps3, if you do get a 360 and pay for gold. This talk about principals is getting ridiculous. The gaming industry isn't some kind of religion. Companies do what they think will benefit them the most. Sony thinks it will lose a big advantage over the xbox if they charge for online play. Microsoft thinks as long as customers are satisfied with gold, the income outweighs the loss of a few customers who aren't willing to pay to play online and thus don't get an xbox.

PC is no threat to consoles. Nor do I believe it has ever been. I'm sure you can think of a list of reasons why.

I just can't imagine online gamers are going to flock to Wii U.

Xbox 360 is doing quite well in spite of charging for online play and that's probably because most people don't really care about online gaming. But that fraction of users paying for Xbox Live is a goldmine for MS. I just wouldn't presume charging for online play would be a bad move for Sony bearing in mind there are millions that would pay and not bitch about it.

Why should it be free? Because you're accustom to it being free?

Offering online services isn't free. For years Sony has actually lost money on PSN. PSN also offers less content than XBL due to Sony charging publishers for bandwidth fees.

Free is great, but bear in mind it cost money to offer those services.