Doesn't mean you want to pay for online multiplayer though. I have a large interest in PS4, I intend on buying one but my online gaming habits is low. I think I mainly played CoD with friends and then maybe occastionally Tekken and Wipeout online, other then those, i mostly play single player Action/RPGs. Spending money on a service I don't use much feels like a waste of money, that extra money spent on not gaming online could be spent on more games.

I wouldnt habe bought into next gen if it werent for ps plus. I consider it not as im paying for online but that im paying for the instant game collection. Have been a subscriber since launch and i see no reason not to keep renewing.

My take is that I would prefer free. That was a big talking point last gen. If I had it my way, it'd still be free. But then again, online infrastructure costs money. If I want Sony to do well and keep making Playstations more appealing, I have to put in my share. You can't expect to partake in a service for free, forever. That's just reality slapping me in the face. I don't like it, I wish it was how it was in the past, but I have to adapt.

However, you get free games or heavily discounted games. Games that I wanted to play but never got around to buying. Free AAA games and Steam summer/winter sale prices for games that aren't free? If I do have to pay to play online, at least I'm getting something in return. It's not like how Xbox Live was up til now, where the fee was purely to play online (and lock apps behind a paywall...that were already behind a paywall). Now (thanks to PS+), both paid services get massive discounts and free games. They literally pay for themselves now. Sure, you have to pay $50 up front, but, for example, I just got PS All Stars for $5. It retails for $20. Knock off $15 from PS+. One of the best games of 2013, Bioshock: Infinite, retails for $20. Got that free. Knock off $20 from PS+. DmC is still $20. Got that free on PS+. Knock $20 from PS+.

It may suck that there's an up front cost, but when I think long term, I was gonna buy those games anyway. They would have cost me $60 total. I only spent $55 (PS+ sub/free games + $5 for PSASBR). Not to mention the other free games I got this years and future free games and discounts. I don't mind paying to play online when I get something in return. Paying for itself doesn't make the service "free" but when you think about it, all it really does is reallocate your money that you were gonna spend anyway. If PS+ gives you a lot of fluff sometimes, but if it gives me just 3 games I want in an entire year....3 games I would have spent money on anyway if I decided on want another game one random day, then I consider the service "free" and everything else (discounts, betas, free games, etc) are just icing on the cake.

And with that Sony and MS make lots of money, which they, in turn, pour back into their online services....instead of just eating the cost and remaining at the very bare minimum ala Nintendo

This is a feature that has been working since 2005 on other services, I don't understand your comment.

I literally would not have been able to beat games had it not been for party chat.

Yes, it does.  Most gamers want to game online and want to have the option to do so whenever they like.  On Wii U I can play Ghosts or MarioKart online whenever I want at no extra charge.  If I want the same experience on PS4 I will have to pay an extra fee.  The vast majority of PS4 buyers are subscribers - Sony has been very open about this and blunt about it being how they are able to turn a profit on PS4 at $400.  You aren't getting some amazing extra service for the fee that is now charged on a service that was once free - it's just a hidden extra source of revenue for Sony.

Nintendo will charge next gen. It's a obvious money maker and how can they not after the direction Sony took?

Xbox Live Silver and basic PSN still offer a competent online service, complete with messaging services, friends lists and an account system tied to your purchases.

I think the reason Nintendo gets criticised is because they don't offer these basic necessities that have been widely used for nearly a decade now.

I'm most would if they brought it up to the standards of PSN and XBL.

Joke answer, no. I don't play nintendo systems. Real answer, depends on how they implement it. I've had ps4 since launch and got ps+ with psv in February. I've platniumed knack and infamous so far and bought mlb the show... Haven't played online yet. So in short, if it was just online play then most likely not. I will play online after getting TLoU though. That was one of the only games i played online last gen.

I kind of want to chime in with my perspective.

I don't play online games much at all. I'm more of a single-player person. Yet I've paid for PS+ for two years now and will continue to do so.

The simple truth is, for me, PS+ saves me money. I've paid $33 a year for each of the last two years and the return I've gotten has far exceeded that. From games I would probably have never tried had it not been for PS+, like Kingdoms of Alamur and XCOM: Enemy Unknown, to games I was waiting on a price drop on, like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Saint's Row the Third, it's been consistently worth the price.

That's not all, though. I've pretty sure it's been worth the price on sale discounts ALONE. PSN has some really nice sales and PS+ makes it even better.

Do I like paying for online capabilities? Not really, no. However, I'd still buy PS+ even if it wasn't attached to online play. As someone on a budget, who isn't buying very many games at full cost right now, the value of PS+ has been excellent.