Okay, before I explain this, I have to say that a friend and I have had this idea since 2006, and it's slowly evolved over time, up to the past week with the release of the Wii U...

My idea involves a paid subscription service (only in the order of something like $2 per month). With a large fanbase contributing (say 2 million subscribers), that would pool together quite a large amount of funds for a month. In return, they'd get:

- An online subscription to a magazine (In this instance, I would say something similar to Nintendo Power or the old NMS). This could eventually pay for itself in the end, mainly by keeping the hardcore informed abou what's happening, what's coming out, etc. (This was the last idea that we thought of. The Wii U gamepad could be an ideal delivery platform).

- Additions to games they already own (for instance, a new track on Mario Kart, or a new level on Smash Bros etc). Since the time of conception in 2006, DLC has established a foothold in the marketplace, but I believe it could be used more effectively, and reach a broader base, if it were part of a subscription rather than individual purchase.

- Their own kind of "soapbox", in which their paid subscription allows them a vote in what they'd like to see in upcoming game additions, or even as far as upcoming games. Subscribers could propose ideas and other subscribers could support, reject or add to it. Ideas with the highest agreement amongst subscribers get heavily prioritised into becoming the next available content.

In order for an idea like this to work, the console manufacturer requires a large fanbase willing to spend a miniscule amount per month, as well as a large first-party lineup to provide additions to. I used Nintendo in this example because I believe they're in the best position for these two requirements to provide such an idea. Their main downfall is their refusal to provide a proper account system that such a subscription could belong to.

Once first-party support is maintained and if popularity to the idea happens to be achieved, theird parties could get on board by means of a "reward" method of a payment per download of their dditional content from the main pool of funds. The popular additions from 3rd parties could make said parties a small fortune.

As a side effect, games that appear to be getting a lot of "additional support" would encourage additional sales of said game by subscribers who think the game is being well maintained after it's initial release.

What do you guys think? Would you subscribe to such an idea?

I think that the resources used to make this happen could outweigh the revenue they reel in from those paying for subscriptions.

Howso? Keep in mind that this would involve developing for an existing game engine. Once the initial engine is sound an in place, additional levels a lot more negligible in terms of development time and costs.

Another idea is to use funds to port their old retro games to new hardware (Not emulation, actual porting), which could open them in turn for additions of their own.

An online subscription to a magazine (In this instance, I would say something similar to Nintendo Power or the old NMS). This could eventually pay for itself in the end, mainly by keeping the hardcore informed abou what's happening, what's coming out, etc. (This was the last idea that we thought of. The Wii U gamepad could be an ideal delivery platform).

It takes resources to create something like this.  Even if you're not physically making copies of a magazine, you still need someone to make it.  To make it, you need resources.  Even for a "magazine" that already exists, the suppliers would need to be compensated somehow.

Additions to games they already own (for instance, a new track on Mario Kart, or a new level on Smash Bros etc). Since the time of conception in 2006, DLC has established a foothold in the marketplace, but I believe it could be used more effectively, and reach a broader base, if it were part of a subscription rather than individual purchase.

Making DLC also takes resources as they do not spawn on their own.   Someone has to make it, and that someone needs to be paid.  

Their own kind of "soapbox", in which their paid subscription allows them a vote in what they'd like to see in upcoming game additions, or even as far as upcoming games. Subscribers could propose ideas and other subscribers could support, reject or add to it. Ideas with the highest agreement amongst subscribers get heavily prioritised into becoming the next available content.

Something like this already exists.  If they were to create one entirely for subscribers, it would create an elitism-esque thing between those who are and are not subscribers.  This would give those who pay this "mini-fine" more power over those who do not or cannot pay for it.  It also would need to be developed, refined, and moderated.  That also takes up resources.

edit: In the end, $2 a month is too small for all the things included.  It wouldn't be profitable.

A lot of costs towards a magazine would be saved with online delivery format. Not only this, but oher companies would be interested in a medium that speaks to said subscribers. Think about it, it's a target audience. 100% of all readers ARE gamers, what game publishers are seeking to talk to. Advertising space could be sold to recoup the costs easily.

Once again, the finds fromt he subscription service would be mainly for the additional content, and once the mechanics of the game are in place (which we already know for a fact because the game is released already, and additional content would merely utilise a fully built and tested game engine, which is a majority of game development costs right there), the time and financial costs of level design become a lot more negligible at that point. It all comes down to if they developed the game with future expansion in mind.

Of course it's only the subscribers who have a say, because they're having a say on what they want to see on the network that they're subscribed to. You don't want people who have no intention of paying for a subscription dictating what they'd like to see on said subscription service, would you?

Obviously you didn't even read what you said yourself with that last point.  You were talking about them deciding what is added for things like DLC.  If only subscribers had a say, that would definitely not represent people as a whole.  If DLC was supposed to be a pull factor, why limit input from people who are already subscribed?  I am not entirely sure you know the exact expenses of doing all of this on a regular basis.  If it were to be something they wouldn't put much effort into, why make it subscription based?  If it were to be worked on a lot, it doesn't matter if it's online or the game engine was already developed, $2 a month from 2,000,000 people = $4,000,000 a month.  $4m revenue, minus the costs of paying all these people working on it, plus the costs of hiring people, plus the operating costs that would come up for having something separate for those subscribers.  Even if it turns up in profit, the profits would be very small.  Not even worth the initial-cost investment that is sure to create a loss at start if subscription were to be $2.

The DLC would only be available to subscribers, since they're the ones funding it. If non-subscribers wish to have a say, they have to subscribe. The point is that it provides a platform to maintain games that a group of people are willing to pay a little extra for, and the pull experienced would be from other purchasers of the game who enjoyed it and would like to see more.

You'd only be hiring people for the initial period. Afterwards, the subscription rate pays for these wages. You tell me how many in wages you believe would be required for an additional level for an already established game. A month's wages for 1 or 2 level designers?

The idea is NOT to make too much of a profit. In fact, if the idea worked properly it should be investing more towards further sales through upkeep of existing software. The investment is to steer their existing library towards something that can potentially drive more profit in the long run.