As of Jan14 the PS Plus memberships had tripled since PS4 launch. I imagine how it is now.
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/ps-plus-memberships-have-tripled-since-ps4-launch

To me that shows how, despite the wonderful stuff you get with it, people were online willing to pay for it if since you have to in order to play online. If that wans't the case people probably wouldn't be paying for it. Therefore my observation that, for the mos part, your console isn't just the 350$ you pay for it, no matter how you spin it around. Sony and Microsoft know they can sell with discount and get it back later. That's how business is done.

Look, I was out of line before, and I appologize for that.

But the true reason why your thread bothers me is that you present yourself as "gaming fan", and then go on to count pennies, almost as saying that people that pay more are more gullible and are paying only because they are fanboys or what not (as this here that I quote).

Your logic then implies that people who are "gaming fans" but enjoy PC gaming so much that they perhaps spend $2000 on their setup are "less wise" than you, who games for 50€ per year.

It is that poorly conceived notion that you are trying to present, while actually you are just trying to justify reasons why WiiU is better, that got me upset.

If you were a true "gaming fan", you wouldn't be penny pinching and looking for excuses to look down on users of other consoles, especially those that are service subscribers. 

Different people have different expectations and opinions about how much a certain service is worth/should be worth. I my own personal opinion, paying £30 every year for Xbox Live online muliplayer/party chats, deals with gold, games with gold, and free xbox music/skype/netflix subscriptions is good value. So is PS+, though i myself am not a subscriber (I play multiplayer games on xbox).
Anyway, I think these services are good value for money. I know that i'm paying more than a Wii U owner over the years for multiplayer, but I know that i'm getting a more advanced, feature-rich ecosystem on the Microsoft Azure servers. Same goes (to a lesser extent) for the PSN networks, which should improve their stability as the years go on.

What are "a lot" of people in this dread in denial about?

I have always found this kinda reasoning flawed.

If I buy wiiU, hook it up to my TV (that isn't a smart TV) and its my only way of getting netflix. And getting netflix was one of the reasons I got the wiiU. Then I ownthat wiiU for five years with five years of netflix. Does that mean my wiiU cost me $775?

What about the internet connection I am paying for? Should I tack on the price of that too? After all I can't even go online without paying for internet right?

No. I do not agree that the price of a console should include things that are optional or that have more value than any one purpose. PS+ isn't just for online, it also gives you discounts and gives you free games. Should we then add up all the games you get for free on PS+ and then subtract that from the combined cost of owning the console and the service? I mean if we were to use this very same kinda of "mandatory reasoning", then we should add that everyone that pays for PS+ will come to learn that they get free games. 24 of them for the PS4 alone in a year. Should the cost of those free games be factored in as well and subtracted from the cost of the console and the service across over 5 years?

No, it makes as little sense to do for the same reason it makes no sense adding the cost of an optional service to the console. If you want to play online, then PS+ has value for you. If you don't but want free games... again it has value for you. If you don't want either, then none of any of this matters.

1. Listen. You can argue that thw wiU has the exact games that appeals to you. You may even argue that there are enough of them. But you CANNOT argue that it has as wide a variety of available games as either the PS4/XB1. To do so will literally be you admitting to being extremely biased or ignorant or both. 
2. This is such a bottle of contradictions that its kinda ambarassing. Especially when stating your facts means that you will ignore all the other facts everyone else is stating. Silly us from not looking at the world through your pinhole!!! 
3. Hahahahahahahahahaha...... and you aren't biased and have constructive opinions?

Well in that case I believe you misunderstood me, that wasn't the case I was trying to make at all. I even said I buy 2 consoles each generation at least and I will buy a PS4/X1. Nor I was implying anyone to be less wise than me. That's why I said "One should play what satisfies its needs" at the beginning. If Nintendo had me pay 50$/month I would (although logically I would rather not). I was just saying that ultimatly, if you want to take advantage of the online capbilities the other consoles have, you'll have to pay for it. And since nowadays the average consumer wants onlime MP, few "hardcore" gamers wont pay for it. I know I will when I get PS4/X1. Hell, the minute they announce a Bad Company 3 I'll get PS+ or X live, no doubts about it.

I'm not even saying that value for money garbage Reggie said, cuz that's very subjective and I ain't the kind of person who tries to make others agree with arguing the games in my console of choice are better so your taste sucks. I'm just stating that for most people and specially harccore gamers wandering this forums, they'll be paying 50$ a year.

PS+ tripled with PS4 back in Jan14, with a very small userbase (5M at the time maybe?) Vs the PS3 80M+ install base. A few months back I think they even said a 700% or something growth in subscribers to PS+. (can't  confirm these numbers, if anyone knows, please share). That's a lot of money they get. Imagine X360, if they have 10M active subscibers for Xbox Live at 50$-60$ (I'm not really sure about the correct price), that would mean additional revenues of one Halo per year.

Make no mistake, I would pay for online. I'm just saying that WiiU 300$ vs X1 350$ or something like that isn't quite accurate. Most X1/PS4 players will want to play online and will pay for it. This means they might sell consoles cheap and keep receiving revenues out of it for several years. If, for instance, Sony has at the moment 5M subscribers who paid 50$ for a whole year of online when they subscribed, that's 250M more revenues for them. And you bet they won't spend a 1/3 of it on online infastructure, at least not 1/3 more than they already spent with PS3 network.

FYI, I don't game for 50$/year, I wish. I have my WiiU since Xmas and I've already buried 700$+ on that thing. I would even dare saying Nintendo fans probably end up spending more cuz most buy another console for 3rds. MS/Sony fans stick to their Xbs/PSs, Nintendo fans not so much. I've had every single Nintendo and Sony console since N64/PS1. I'm more the kind of sucker who sucumbs to heavy consumerism regarding videogames.

Same here lol.

Well I did play a few rounds of Halo 3, PGR4, Resistance 3 and Killzone 2, but I'd rather play them alone (or with a local co-op buddy).

That leaves us more cash for games! *High five*

I paid $50 for two years of PS+ when I got my PS4.

In that time I've used it for online play a few times at LAN parties for Diablo III.

The value comes from discounts and free game trials. It has paid for itself and some already.