For what you get on either service, its actually a great value. We're talking a few bucks a month.

They have also become more valuable thanks to competition.

Oh whatever, don't try that. Multiplayer as a service was around way before 2002. Xbox Live wasn't set up to treat people as dogs. It was made so people could have a stable, fast and SECURE online service and not have to worry about anything while playing online. That's the reason it was able to change the 360 from how it was in 2005 to how it is now in 2014. 

Eh?

They said it tripled, so if they were at 1.33m subscribers before PS4 launched, it would be about 4 million now. That would mean it grew by 2.66 million.

PS3 and Vita sold a lot of units during the holidays, so that might account for new subscribers as well. But its safe to presume growing so fast is due to PS4's online requirements. CoD, BF4, and KZ all sold over a million units.

And I doubt anyone bought COD and BF4 for the gripping story

As I said before, both services are a great value for the money. Online gaming isn't enjoyed by masses anyhow, this really only impacts those who want that service.

Unfortunately, offering online play isn't free and online features have become more robust over the years. We Xbox fans tried explaining this to Sony fans for years, it was inevitable.

You know that depends more on your ISP and the servers of the game (the vast majority of which are not hosted by MS). All xbl (and PSN, or anything similar) is, is an extra hurdle for everyones connection to go through.

These services do not magically speed up, stabalise or secure your connection in any way.

I never said that it speeds up, stabilises or secures your connection or the games themselves at all, I said it did that to its own service. 2005 Xbox Live was shit compared to 2014 Xbox Live. It improved over time because of Gold subscriptions.

It probably does but for me the appeal just isn't that great, I had PS+ from October to December last year and while I got to play some games I wouldn't say it's "all that." It's nice but not great, but I'm currently enjoying my PS3 with it's FREE multiplayer gaming. I get to play with my friends and not have to pay anything more than just for the game (and the console obviously)... and the ISP and electricty......

Healthy competition is a great thing, it helped PSN add aditional features it might never have (like PS+)and has helped Xbox Live be more competitive with it's additions as well.

But it's a great value for a service that is required to play part of a game you've already paid for. I guess with modern gaming culture there is a lot on offer for those that want it, people demand more from companies (online multiplayer, DLC, updates for game bugs etc) but expect to pay less (we still pay £40 for a new game, we did this during PS1 era). This is a way they can get some of that money back via DLC or subscription services but usually it's a choice. PS+ was a choice on PS3 and Vita not a requirement.

I started playing X-men Legends again the other day, in it you can unlock things, characters, costumes etc, If this game was made now, all that would be pre-order bonuses or DLC you pay extra for. Even if this direct is needed to make the industry more prolific, I still don't like it.

PS+ was choice on PS3 and Vita, but look how quickly games are shutting down their servers. I get the feeling some games avoid offering online because it cost money to offer those services. Offering online play isn't free and buying a game doesn't necessarily mean you should get that free.

Some games seem to offer little content in hopes of selling DLC. But there are plenty of games that offer tons of content even before DLC. Also, its debatable how much content is worth the purchase of a $60 game.

Are Activision, EA, Rockstar, 2K and other 3rd party developers getting money from the subscription services? Gold and PS+ require you to pay to use MS and Sony stuff but what of the game makers themselves and their servers? I remember there being an argument between Activision and MS once, Activision claimed that as they are providing a huge number of the subscribers because of Call of Duty they should get some of the money for using it as MS don't host the servers, Activision do. I never did find out how this was resolved.

I guess I'm stuck in a mentality that as part of buying a £40 game, it includes the rights to play that game whether it's single player or multiplayer, so it includes the rights to play for on their servers as well. Much to the reason I was against 'Online Pass' as I felt that the right to play online went with the game not the person, so if they sold it second hand, whoever the new owner is, also go the original owners right to play it online (I mean it's not like the original owner is on there anymore). 

The value of a £40 game isn't the same anymore. £40 in the PS1 could get you a puzzle game, IQ or Devil Dice would have been RRP, games that now people wouldn't put for more than £10 on download only probably. Like I said before, we expect more but expect to pay less.

One of my biggest gripes from last gen was Mass Effect 3. If you loved the ME series, had it one Xbox but didn't pay for Gold, you could not increase Galatic Readiness without paying more. They essentially removed an entire section of the single player game. This was a gaming sin as far as I was concerned. EA payed mind you for other things wrong with that game but that I thought was bigger than anything. Gold required to play a single player game, disgusting.

Sorry, if I've diverted your thread, I went off on one.