I don't care much about multiplayer gaming, I have PS+ for the monthly games. Especially for the Vita games it's a sweet deal.

No, people don't pay for online because it is worth it but because it is necessery if they want to play online.

I don't have a problem with subscription fees. It's $60 a year and you get free games and massive discounts every month. Plus the online components for the PS4/XBO are far far superior than the WiiU. I mean any games you buy digitally are tied to the hardware instead of your account. That's like PS2 level shit.

Agreed. It's funny, because people talk about how if the company dropped the price of a console by $50, then they would buy it. It's $50 dollars! If you actually wanted it, you would have bought it. I hate how people use the price argument for why they aren't buying one of the consoles.

And then there's reality where price drops on consoles/handhelds have boosted sales because they reached new audiences with the lower price. Many people set themselves a limit how much they pay for a console or handheld.

So many things wrong with OP... first of all, M$ wasn't the first of the 4 major console manufacturers to charge a subscription fee for online, you know. That distinction technically belongs to...

*drumroll*

NINTENDO!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview

And Sega also charged a nominal subscription fee for SegaNet back during the Dreamcast days, and the GameCube's one and only online title Phantasy Star Online II required a... *drumroll again*... monthly fee to play online as well!

PS2 was the only console of the gen to truly offer free online gaming (with the exception of FFXI which was a subscription based MMO)... but that was because there was no centralized network a la Xbox Live, and it was up to 3rd parties to set up their own servers.

M$ was the first to offer a unified online service for their console, and they did so at a time when broadband internet access was still very limited for most of the US. They were also the first to offer broadband networking capabilities and an HDD built right into the console (the DC initially shipped with only a 56k modem, and broadband was not widely supported... the PS2's Network Adapter and HDD were sold separately).

And once the 360 was launched, XBL was opened up to anyone with a console and a broadband connection without a fee... it was only required for multiplayer and later most multimedia apps. They've since updated their model so that essentially only multiplayer requires a subscription, with nearly everything else free, same as PSN.

Not surprisingly, Nintendo's online network continues to lag behind in pretty much all areas, so they'd have no justification to charge a subscription based fee... though don't think Nintendo wouldn't if they could justify it... remember, they've already done it before.

I remember free online being something Sony fans held over Microsoft fans last gen. I guess it's worth it now....

Online infrastructure is expensive to maintain. Fees should be expected. Having free online is an added value to Nintendo consoles and I hope they keep it that way.

If online wasnt worth the subscription then people wouldn't pay and scream it at the companies. Then the company would change it by giving more value. Sony actually realized this gen that online console gaming is important to gamers today. If it was a shitty deal then there would have been an outrage towards Sony. But there wasnt, why? Because its worth it.

Except that's not really true....   Online purchases are tied to your account and your account is tied to your hardware. 

You know I shouldn't have to pay JUST TO PLAY ONLINE. I already have to pay my internet bill I don't need another bill to pay just to play online a few times a week with my friends. Basic online play should be free, the other stuff I don't care about being put behind a pay wall. I think the only reason there is no Nintendo Premium right now is because they don't have much to offer for a subscription base.