As I said, my post wasn't intended to be seen as a "Why this is better than that". It was a retort for your suggestion of adding Online Play to PSN+ as being a good way for people to see value in it, with my argument being why it isn't and how leaving it as is can be seen as a greater way for people to see value in it during the transition to a new generation of consoles.

You are clearly reading it wrong. I have already mentioned how I meant for it to come across. Live only came up because it is the only one to go against the current industry standard that seems to have been put in place across all other gaming enabled devices, which is "Free Online Gaming".

You ask how does it attract people? I already mentioned that. For people purchasing the console they see it as a service that gives them a steady flow of games to choose from and play. Like said before, my argument was purely in terms of people purchasing the next iteration of gaming consoles and how they may percieve "value" at THAT time. You say people don't see the appeal, yet the amount of subscribers are growing, which shows the appeal is obviously there. You can not prove that it isn't. We only have one number to go by and that is the ~297% increase from the same perios last year.

Ok, but I said I wasn't going to derail this thread any more so I'm going to keep this brief since I've said this so many times already.

"Lower your expectations.  You are only paying $50/year for (15) pre-selected titles that rotate, overall giving you ~(22-24) full titles per year. An average of $2/year for a year long rental (If you do not resubscribe). That is ~730 times cheaper than what it would cost you to rent each game at Redbox for an entire year at their current $2/day price. It's incredible value."

Those 15 titles are picked by Sony. I may not want any of them. I don't want to pay for temporary access to only what Sony allows me to play and not keep. If I got to pick those 15 temps I might be interested. Or if got to keep Sony's picks forever I might be interested. But 15 temporary Sony picks has no value to me. Also, Rebox is a very poor comparison. Why would anyone rent a game for $2/day for a year when services like Gamefly let you keep it for as long as you want and let your choose from their entire library of games for all systems?

"Selection of (15) titles for free throughout the length of your subscription is better than no games, am I right?"

Only if you want those 15 games. If you don't care about the games that Sony picks or if you already own them then they have no value.

"No you do not. If you miss a month the games can no longer be started up from the XMB. However, once you resubscribe those titles are again enabled for you to play. I am fairly positive this is how it works."

I'm not talking about missing a payment. I'm talking about games made available in months or years past. If Uncharted becomes available and you don't download it when it's on PS+ then you can't get it unless Sony decided to make it available again. You have to check every month and download everything when it's available or you'll miss out on a deal. You are paying for a rental of a rotating list and if you forget or if you are on vacation and a game comes and goes you are S.O.L.

"Many sales are available to non-Plus users. The difference is that a normal PSN user will see a $20 game reduced to $15 for the duration of the sale while the Plus user will get the same game for $5-$10."

If you are paying for a sale then it's not a real sale. The guy without PS+ who buys a $20 game on sale for $15 just saved $5. PS+ subs pay for their lower price.

"For $50/year you're expecting way too much. Something like that would need to run you at least $20/month. You should sign up for GameFly @ $17/month for 1 rental at a time."

"Once again, you are expecting way too much. Download any and all games for $50/year and you keep all games? How would SONY make any money that way? People would buy a console, pay $8 for one month of Plus and download the entire library and then cancel."

"That goes for any console does it not? PSN has plenty of exclusive titles and PS+ users often get heavy discounts on them."

I said "One of the following" not all of it. I've already explained why I don't want to pay for select games of Sony's choosing. If the games were perminatly mine or if I got to choose from the entire catalogue then the service might have some value to me. The only reason Sony won't let you keep playing the games after you stop paying for the subscription is to tether you to the service so they can keep getting $50/year for stuff that has no tangible value anyway. As for the exclusives your talking about. I wasn't talking about PSN exclusives, I was talking about PS+ exclusives. The service would obviously have more value if it offered games not even available on PSN. Or at the very least offered them as an early timed exclusive before wider release.

Nothing wrong with that. I am in the same boat and am waiting for a selection of titles that interest me before I dive in.

From your last comment I can see that you need to see value before you invest. That's good. That means you are smart with your money.  Nobody should dive in without full consideration. If the service doesn't have the games you want then it's not worth your money, no matter how "free" the games seem or how "cheap" the sales apear. If you pay for something you have to want what your buying. PS+ has yet to convince me that it's worth buying.

I most likely am reading it wrong lol  As I said before for the people who like PS+ that is great :)  For me I'm still not interested.  Next generation could be different, but this gen no. I just don't think it has enough going for it to make an impact this generation.  XBL you are kind of forced to pay for it so when they got those extra services people were pretty happy about it.  If sony forced people to pay for online then people would be talking about how amazing it is because they are forced to use those features, do you see what I'm saying?  People aren't going to pay for a service unless they absolutely have to, and this goes for XBL as well.  Guarantee if it wasn't for online then people wouldn't be paying for it either.  I just think it can't be as big as people are hoping unless they tie online in with it.  Just an opinion, doesn't mean it's true.

I'm glad that is the case.

Anyways, if SONY changed to pay for play online I would go to Nintendo only. When and if they did it, I would stick to my mobile device. I don't play online enough to ever justify paying for it, however, when I do wish to go online with friends on occassion, I would like that option to be there for me. This is why I find the free online to be incredibly appealing.

PS+ just doesn't have MY kind of games yet. I want JRPGs added. I want games like Wizardry or even MTG Duels of the Planewalker (Not RPG I know). Games that tend to fly under the radar. They should provide more of these since the ones they do offer, more times than not they are highly purchased titles that many have already experienced.

All your other issues may end up being taken care of if SONY makes full use of their Gaikai purchase. At that time they could easily create a higher monthly payment service that would allow for streaming of all games across the Playstation catalogue. I would guess in $20/month range and would likely exclude newly released titles. Only adding them after 3-6 month of release in your territory.

Streaming games will take a long LONG time to be viable to everyone. Half of the USA doesn't have fast enough internet connections to stream 1080p at 60fps. I would NEVER pay for a service that I can't get the quality I want. I also like my collection or physicle games more than my digital licenses.

When everyone has affordable fiber internet in their homes I can see streaming games take over, but that is at least a generation away. And by generation I mean a human generations not a console generation.

Right now you have to live in a major city and within close distance to a server farm and have very fast broadband to stream games at the quality expected from a retail game.

Yeah I'd prefer all game services to be free but yeah haha 

If they leave PS+ without online then I don't know how they can make it appeal to more people. The 1-3 month free trials that they are giving away will surely help it.  That is a great way to hook people because once you stop paying you lose those games.  I find that a great strategy so if they gave 1-3 month free trials with every PS3/PS4/Vita then that would help it a lot with long term PS+ users.

Its the first gen with PSN Plus, its just coming into its own. next gen it will be a full fledged product just like Xbox Live was this gen, they just have to do it without blocking the consumer from gaming.