You are of course correct, the hypocricy is hilarious. Sony seem to have gotten away with it quite easily though, by offering more, at a lower subscription price and introducing it right as MS were busy shooting themsevles in both feet and jumping off a cliff backwards, on fire.

What benefits are you talking about though? Cross-game chat is the only one I can think of and I believe that was a hardware limitation.

They haven't met their anti-Sony fan thread quota.

yeah it sucks now bought ps+ on BF for $30 will activate it next year maybe sony will do there deal again offering a extra 3 months if 1 yr is activated within a certain time

noones complaining b/c theres no alternative other than wiiu and PC, now there complaining about resolutions b/c PS4 offers a better alternative

also psn plus is still cheaper than live aswell as offering discounts and free games

Considering 1/3 of ALL PS+ memberships were sold on launch week at Gamestop, many people had no problem paying

It would be impossible for me to complain at this point, as I've previously seen enough value in PS+ to have been a subscriber for over a year.

That's pretty much the basis of this discussion, the relative value of the services. I said last year that the problem with Live is that there is little or no extra value for the consumer. It was simply a pay-wall. I said that they would need to increase the value of Live for next gen or they might be in a bit of trouble--which it looks like they're working on. The one thing that still bothers me, however, is that video apps are also behind the pay-wall, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

From a personal stand-point, I really like PS+ because of the games that are included. It's already saved me a ton of money and introduced me to some games that I probably would not have tried otherwise. I'm very happy with it. I also, generally speaking, don't really care about multi-player, so it's all good.

Some are complaining. I don't like it personally and I might not pay. I'd say a lot didn't mind because Sony did a really good job of showcasing how it would be worth the money with all the games you get. Also, 360 was the only one doing it which makes it instantly worse for most people. Honestly I didn't see people complaining about paying for Live the first year because it was the only console that did it as well as it did. It was worth the money. After a few years when PSN kept catching up is when I saw most people giving MS so much shit for charging. Anyway. now the best 2 networks on console are charging so there's nothing people can do. Although if Nintendo manages to catch up I see people siding with Nintendo on that front.

Bingo. And the OP wonders why PSN users are not complaing about paying.  Then again, PSN users are not paying for PSN while having the ability to access Netflix without extra cost.  It's the PSN+ users who have to pay which gives them better value over the competition.  Go figure.

hey I remember jega!
man all these old users popping back up

Even so, $50/year for (15) games that ends up being around (25) or so before the years ends is a pretty damn good deal, even if they expire along with your subscription.

Not even Redbox gives that good a deal @ $2.19/day per title. Gamefly is like $17/month.

You also get the benefit of great discounts, like right now you can grab FFXIV for just $10 on PS3. Then once it releases for PS4 in April you get a free upgrade. So $10 for the PS4 version of FFXIV, which releases the same time as the 2.2 patch, which adds a TON of content.

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

The insane amount of games you get if you have a combination of PS3/PS4/Vita makes it more than worth the money. Although I don't approve of charging people who only want to play online, I would get PS+ anyway because of the immense value it gives. Nothing Gold has ever done comes close to it.