You are pretty late to the party, that's partially why. It's also okay now since Microsoft isn't the only one doing it.

Because PS actually get something out of it and don't need to use 99% of the consoles features, rather than just a shitty paywall.

I don't have a PS4. That's why I don't complain. I complained about it the whole time I had a 360. I couldn't stand the fact that they were making me pay to play Halo, Gears and COD online. It was actually a relief when I sold the damn thing.

Umm this a dead issue! If you bought ps3 from inception you got a free ride! The cost of running a cloud and maintaining a network is costly! Sony has every right to charge. 2nd all the free games you get it's worth ps plus anyways! DEAD ISSUE!

Whatever, you know what we mean.  I've played quite a few games on PS+ on PS3 that I didn't want to pay $60 for when they were new, but I did want to pay $4.16 a month to play them later.

The fact that PS+ is required for multiplayer on PS4 is irrelevant to me, since I already thought PS+ was a good deal on PS3.

I still think it is complete BS. At least Vita and PS3 online play remain free.

The key difference is that, when it was Xbox 360, Microsoft was the ONLY company regularly charging for online play. Nintendo didn't charge (though their stuff was shit), PSN was free (and compared to Xbox, the only difference was cross game chat and slightly more frequent outages), and Steam was free (and that was infinitely superior.

This gen, now both PSN+ and XBLG are required for online play, but the deals are leagues apart. With PSN, you get super discounts, online storage, deals on THREE consoles (PS3, PS4, and Vita), and it's cheaper. Plus, it feels optional. the only thing you're truly missing out on if you chose not to pay for it is online. Sucks, I don't like it; never will, but I actually plan on buying PSN+ on a yearly basis now, because the deals are so good. Whereas on Xbox, if you chose not to pay for online, your console is just a shittier version of the PS4 (weaker specs, mostly) for a higher cost (500 upfront.)

Even when both consoles are compared at their best, you still get more content for less money on PSN. More games, more movies, more deals, and more options.

So yes, it makes a difference. I do agree that it kind of sucks that you have to pay for PSN+ if you want to game online now, but the deals are so good on PSN+ that, honestly, I was planning on buying it regardless of its need to be activated to play online. IT sucks for people HAVING To buy PSN+ for the first time, but They will find - as many others have - that it is worth it.

That's the difference.

**Edit** - Oh, and Microsoft was the first to do it.  I don;t buy the 'it pays for the online servers' bit, because Steam has managed to keep that shit free; Sony's only doing it because they saw Microsoft do it and make a shit-tonne of money off it.  IT's capitalism, it's kinda greedy, but it was Microsoft who set the precedent for it, and Sony is, as they usualyl are, just following in the footsteps of others, and we all saw it coming half a decade ago. 

People are more than happy paying for the Instant Game Collection.

Funny thing about PS+ and some mentality here that I find...weird.

I am not a fan of GTA style games. I am not. The crime thing, the open world shooting, lala...boring for me most of the times. The gangsta stuff, pimp, hoes, guns, cars, crews etc...they do NOT interest me in the least. Quite the opposite, they bore me.
Now...with this in mind, I would not, maybe in YEARS, have been tempted to spend money or a download on Saints Row The 3rd. The first 2 did not interest me, why would this? There are a lot of other games out there with far better appeal for myself that I'm willing to pay money for.
But...it was late one evening and I had PS+ open and I was browsing content. Saw that I had this for free.
What the heck, download it, maybe my girlfriend would like it.

Cutting a longer story short: I loved the game. Loved the main character, loved the humor, loved the crazy weapons and vehicles. No review or trailer had managed to get me even at least interested in the thing...but here I am considering if I want to invest the time to platinum it or not.

Right now I'm playing Remember Me (look forward to my review), a game for which I had some interest but the trailers did not convince me, neither did the reviews and I was waiting for a bargain price for it. Really enjoying the game so far.

On the Vita's side I've found that I quite enjoy Touch my Katamari and Stranger's Wrath HD, other games for which I would not have shelled out cash on a whim.

My girlfriend has played Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen and Need for Speed: Most Wanted,

PS+ allows users to experiment with genres or games they would not have otherwise engaged in any way. I believe that speaks enough about the value of the service.
And if you go to the default defense "Yeah, there's nothing in 50+ games a year to interest me"...then, sorry for putting it this way, but you are a very boring person. Or afraid to experiment with things outside of your comfort zone.

Sorry for this longer off-topic...but I keep seeing this defense "Yeah, there's nothing in that offer that interests me" and wanted to share my view on this.

Games for Gold has not.