I would love for Nintendo to have a service equivalent to PS+, so long as it's completely optional like PS3. I will never pay for online service equivalent to Microsoft's, but I'd strongly consider Sony's. Say what you will about Nintendo, though; everyone claims it sucks and it's vastly inferior, but outside of cross-game voice chat and a PS+ equivalent, what am I really missing?

Yeah, the VC could carry a Nintendo equivalent quite well. But $10 a month would be a no-go for me. That averages out to 240 percent of a year's worth of PS+.

My problem with this model is it will inevitably become worse and worse as time goes on. PS+/XBLG are both services that double up as an entry barrier for multiplayer + you get free games(yes I know they are "rentals") and maybe a few more features. As the userbase grows the games are only going to get worse and I believe this because of how PS+ has clearly declined in the quality of games given. Its still one of the best values in gaming if you have 2-3 of the PS family, but its going to be more indys. Nothing wrong with indys, but they are more likely to give away old and unwanted(potentially not very good) indys as PS4 moves closer to the 30-50 million subscriber mark.

It would certainly help, but it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial to their audience as it is for SONY. Since they shutdown online services for the Wii, they only have the 3DS and the Wii U to offer it on. There aren't enough games to offer on the Wii U yet (or possibly ever) to give away on a monthly basis, so most of their offerings would have to come from the virtual console (or whatever they call it) or 3DS.

Who said I did? Btw pointless reply just as this one.

I've always been aware I'm bad with money and love games, so they shouldn't tale pricing advice from me lol. I imagined $9.99 as more of a placeholder but all it has done is distracted some people away from my main point.

"JazzB1987 said ... everyone agrees"

We dissed the notion of paying yet another fee to get online to play games.... and I (and im sure most others) still stick by that.

Sony can say the games are free, but everyone who loves PS+, does because of the games. The games are PS+ and PS+ is the games, and if it wasnt for the games, then were back to square 1, just paying to get online which is silly.

That's an invalid comparison.

Many Ps3 owners had a problem with paying a subscription for online multiplayer (and some free apps like Netflix). They didn't have with ps+. I try to avoid generalizations so I'm only gonna speak for myself. Had Sony introduced the exact same model on ps4 that MS had with xb360, there is no way I would have paid for it. The many free games that come with ps+ are more than enough for me to pay the subscription fee, hence the lack of complaints.

Do you even understand your own question?  You asked why I think I can speak for everyone. 

I replied "who said I did" (think that I can speak for everyone) I never said that I think that way. (its a different thing)


(you focus way to much on a single word so I focus way to much on your exact question even tho we both know what the other person ment)