@starcraft you are making a big assumption that hardcore online players don't care about various issues, even if they don't affect them, in regards to the x1. The only people that will be truly buying an X1 isn't because of features but either because they like the MS brand (perhaps religiously) or like the exclusive first party titles. The hard core audience might only be looking at what looks better and is cheaper for gaming, and in both regards the ps4 is superior (subjectively somewhat).

Consider if MS proceeds with their rumoured subscription package with low-cost xbox. How will mandatory PS+ compare then?

@ stinky:

The sales figures for the current gen favor and will favor more so in the future the PS3. For install base, and to be completely honest I think the current real install base of the PS3 is a lot higher than sales comparison would indicate. That being said MS released earlier and cheaper, and even had a cheap rip off of a console ?4gb HDD. Yet in spite of all that sony has had more PS3 sales and they continue to grow. So while MS might boost sales with some PR tactics it won't reach the same success of the x3 at all.

Judging from last E3 and MS business overall they are out of touch with their user base and consumers by a large margin. They act as if we all use windows because we think its a great OS rather than have little to no other choice than to utilize their offerings. So that is why the mass market hasn't adopted or like Windows 8 devices. The other offerings are (subjectively) better. I think in 5-10 years Ubuntu will be more relevant than MS.

15 hours? Damn, you're fast.

There's also a speed run of someone beating Half Life 1 in 27 minutes. But unless you are a speed runner, they shouldn't count to measure the total time of a game.

You ignored my question with another question. "Free" games are a consolation, not a bonus, when you're forced to pay. That's my stance.

And I've complained about it a lot. In fact, I've only payed once for Xbox Live, then dropped the subscription.

I'm unhappy with paying to play multiplayer in games but it's only multiplayer that is restricted. Access to already paid for TV services, iPlayer, the PSN Store and F2P games will remain available. I do understand why they are doing it mind you.

Which raises a question, if certain games can bypass the 'paywall', does that mean if they wanted to, other games could remove the paywall?

Why couldn't a big company like Activision with the profits it makes from CoD goto Sony and say "We'd like to keep multiplayer free for CoD." and just giving them an extra £1 per game sold as compensation? 

I don't see call of duty dominating the next gen shooters to be honest

You're not forced to pay though. PS4 can work just fine without Playstation Plus. You can still play some free to play games online, you can still use Netflix/Hulu/etc and you can still play single player games. That's something the PS4 has that makes it better than the Xbox One. 

If you still think Sony is evil for doing this then don't buy the PS4. No one is stopping you. Wii U is the only one that has free to play online now. Feel free to support that. 

Have you even played Halo3? How the F is it useless without Gold? Lol you don't need Gold to play multiplayer. Useless? Lol

Considering PSN+ (and now XBox Live) gives you a few free games every month, I don't think its a bad value at all. Hell, had PSN+ started out like that, I would have jumped in. But at first it was just discounts and free stuff that didn't matter like avatars and backgrounds. As time passed it gained quality free games.

This cost won't keep me from buying a PS4. WiiU gaining the 3rd party games I care about is the only way.