Oh no I didn't mean the ENTIRE backlog of games. No frikin way. I meant just 2-3 games a month like we see currently on PS+.

That to me makes more sense. Other than that, you'll be able to buy each game individually just like you can buy PS1 and PS2 classics. Only difference is that those games will be streamed and hence won't require updating to be running on a new PS4 architecture. That might make their releases a lot quicker.

It's kind of a downer but fine. I didn't have a problem paying for Xbox live gold either.

"if you don't have an option anymore :) PAYWALL!"

we still have an Option, Online play for the PS3 is still free!, we can stick to PC or play on the PSVita or play on the Nintendo WiiU. Or get an OUYA, or The MOJO stick to tablet gaming with a Game pad, Game on a smart TV. The fact is there is many choices for gaming, and you do not have to be a fanboy to say No! i will not be paying to play online!

They're not the exactly the same.  PS+ offers you free games per month.  The paywall only blocks online multiplayer and not any of the others apps and features.

I'm already a PS+ members because it's a great service, not because it's online.  I don't support requiring to pay to play online, but the model behind it is much better than Microsoft's pay or you can't do sh**.

I don't like this pay to play online because once my Plus runs out and I don't want to resubscribe I'll still have to, but I'd rather pay to play online rather than be tied down to restrictive DRM where I can't play any of my games in the future.

Perhaps sony should have provided 2 SKUs so people could understand their strategy since a lot of people just don't seem to be getting it: $599 + console life free online or $399 + PS+. Guess which one gamers would pick?

PS4 is not a $400 console and sony can't take the same losses as last gen!!!!!

You must have owned a ps3 pre 2008.

Yah when I saw the "it is okay, good strategy from Sony, expected, it does not bother me at all" reactions from the so called Playstation nation I was laughting so hard ;) this is so hilarious to know the same exact people were bashing Xboxlive so hard not a week ago and "claiming" they would never pay for it! Fun time!

defiantly sucks should of priced the console at 500 instead as it seems the no drm on ps4 and SW support was is enough to have a successful gen

not a deal breaker for me as ps4 is $100 cheaper and still comes with rechargeable batteries for the controller

I'm still against paying for online, but XBox did it even when the competition did it for free. That's much much worse than what's happening now.

On the one hand I've been a Plus member for almost 2 years and it has paid for itself in free games and discounts several times over, so the fact that PS4 multiplayer will now require Plus really doesn't affect me.

On the other hand I don't see the rationale for Sony doing this - clearly the negative PR can't be worth it, and why just tie multiplayer to Plus when other stuff like PSN store access, media (i.e. Netflix I presume) remain free to use?  Sony should have used the 'pull' method instead of 'push':  add some must-have *new* feature to Plus that would entice nearly everyone to join it rather that artificially tie a core function (mulitplayer) to it to push people into grudgingly signing up for Plus.

A glaring mis-step in an otherwise solid pro-gamer set of corporate policies (no restrictions on used game sales or lending, $399 price point, etc)