You're pretty much forced if you want to access the online component of a game, unless it is a F2P.

I'm not saying this is an evil practice, or should I need to support the consoles that don't do this. What I'm saying is that it sucks.

I have to agree with you about paid multiplayer being a downer... I actually began this generation with the 360 then switched to PS3 due to the games like God of War, Heavy Rain, and a few others... the main selling point was not having to pay for online play I rarely use. I've been trying out PS+ for the past month or so, and it's pretty nice, but nearly as great as it's made out to be. I don't purchase many downloadable titles so the discounts don't add up for me, and the instant game collection contains old titles I played literally years ago. Yes, Uncharted 3 is an excellent addition, but it was released back in 2011. How many of the hardcore gamers (the ones who subscribe to PS+ currently) hadn't already played through it?

This discussion really should be directed at making making PS+ a better value for casual and mid-level gamers. Sony is the front runner in the PS4 / XB1 generation so far due to MS making a convoluted mess for itself; not because Sony really brought anything new and great to gamers. "Faster, bigger, and stronger" is how I would describe the PS4. Not "innovative, surprising, or groundbreaking". Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for the PS4 and I will be getting one on launch day, but Sony should really be patting MS on the back for that, not themselves.

Here's my suggestion for PS+, and it really addresses DRM as well:

1. $60 for games at retail; $40 for games downloaded from PSN. Publishers get lower distribution costs, no used game sales, and gamers get some savings as well. Everyone wins.

2. PS+ members get a $20 PSN store credit per year to use towards anything in the store other than PS+ subscription. Adds value, contributes to point #1, and ensures a consistent revenue stream for Sony via PS+. Everyone wins.

3. The instant games collection is a great idea, especially for budget gamers. Follow through by offering newer or even ORIGINAL content. This would be a great opportunity for small, low-budget indie developers to fund their projects and Sony to be a champion for the little guys.

The argument that you are getting a lot for your $50......is invalid. It is upto us to determine whether what we get for the $50 is "a lot" or not.

This argument that you are getting free games is very similar to the argument that you get multimedia stuff (music, tv, etc) with gold. Or the fact that you got netflix with gold (back then you didn't have netflix on PS3).

If you do get a lot with your PS+ subscription, why then do you have to make it mandatory for online multiplayer? Because sony is making losses?

That doesn't even make any sense.

Halo is popular because of its multiplayer. Are you really denying that?

Did i say that man? You said it's useless without gold which is a garbage statement. I still go over one friends house and play 4 player online from time to time. It's multiplayer is not restricted to Gold. Are you denying what I'm saying? Really? 

Multiplayer is restrcited to Gold. You can't play online without a Gold subscription.

I didn't mean online. I meant offline at his home. You don't need Gold for that. Seriously have you played the game? Multiplayer isn't restricted to Gold dude. I don't think you've ever played Halo before. 

Uh, I'm talking online multiplayer. Obviously.
Halo may have started as some couch local multiplayer game but these days its all about the multi-player. You already know that though.

1. You're wrong. For example one of the first games given out on live is Halo 3 right? YOU NEED XBL GOLD TO PLAY THAT GAME. So even if you could continue playing single-player, why would you? Multiplayer is what keeps people playing and it would be useless without it.

How exactly do YOU NEED XBL GOLD TO PLAY THAT GAME?

How is it useless? 

PS3 is not shooter centric? 6 of its top 10 titles are FPS and another is a TPS. 17 of its top 20 games are games that have big MP components (maybe 18, does Ass Creed 2 have MP? Idk).

MP games not named CoD are already in a bad way just because they are MP games not named CoD. But there is no extra barrier here games have to break just because they are on a Playstation paltform. PS3 owners love shooters and online games just like Xbox owners do. Where Sony needs to make big strides is in the quality of the online service and online play itself. Looks like they might be on their way but you gotta take Sony online promises with a grain of salt. In the end though, MS made a service that is phenomenal and it became the go to place to play online. That is what Sony is trying to emulate and if they succeed, the fee won't matter. It will just come down to what it should.. whether or not you make a good game.

The fact that the Plus service was good for so many people on PS3 though, helps out on PS4. Assuming it is just as good as it was on PS3. But so far the only retail game announced for PS+ on PS4 is a "PS+ Edition" of drive club with less content. I wonder how some of the diehard PS+ fans would feel if PS+ morphed into that.