He just posted the same thing with a different title. I'm really not sure how to read Yoshida's answer.

 there will be some free to play titles that you’ll be able to play without needing a PS Plus subscription, like PlanetSide 2 and DC Universe Online. 

So those two confirmed not to need it, and he says it'll be left to publishers, but why would publishers want a smaller userbase? He did say "some" though.

"We’re focusing on new services and online, like the the ability to play using mobile devices with the cloud feature. (...) investing like this is not compatible with our previous policy that involved reducing costs by every mean to keep the service free."

Some serious bullshit there. If you are investing in new services, charge for these new services and let the rest intact!

Sure, it's pretty expensive to maintain Gaikai's infrastructure, but I'm not interested in streaming games (and even if I were, my Internet connection wouldn't let me), so why should I pay? Maybe I bought a PS4 only to play MGSV online, so why should I hand Sony money for using Konami servers? It is ridiculous...

There's a lot of people on the Internet talking about how Sony won the E3 with ease; claiming that they annihilated Microsoft and stuff, and I just don't get it.     While Microsoft took the best from PS Plus (Instant Game Collection) and announced a lot exclusives, Sony took the worse from LIVE, announced just one (The Order: 1886) and sentenced the Vita to a horrible death by only revealing a few, incredibly old ports.

Sony's "highest point" of the show was the Xbox trolling at the end, and that's saying a lot because, what would have happened if Microsoft didn't come out with that DRM shit three weeks earlier?

Anyway, at least now I know which home console i'm going to choose next gen: none.

I only fear that the high quality of the "free" games will drop because people will need plus anyway. They better split it. 3 bucks for online and all online features, additional 5 bucks for the games.