Nothing is free in this world, making a server cappable of catering a traffic of thousands of conections and keep the players accounts secure is not free.

A point can be made for both sides. It's unfair in that consumers who enjoyed free online now have to pay for the service, which would be upsetting to them. On the other hand, servers aren't free, so I figure companies would want some money to cover the costs, especially for better services.

Either way, I'm not happy about paying.

I mean we pay for online, and get free games every month. Put 100 hours in Slime Rancher since I got it for free on GwG, got to try some other games I would never try otherwise like Vermintide.
But a payed online service can help prevent spam accounts, on PS3 I got riddled with spam accounts and bots, on Xbox I was free from that, only had to deal with those nasty little critters on COD also known as squeakers. If the hardware publishers could only profit from game sales and hardware sales, then they would be screwed.
Microsoft who is in last place rn, is also resting easily with services like XBL and game pass growing as hardware sales are slowing down. Microsoft would be out of the race without paid online services existing and keeping Xbox afloat.

Who cares if it is unfair to the small few that can't afford $5 a month, it is good for the majority of us actual gamers who want the companies to succeed, and depend on competition for good games to play.

Not sure how I feel about that ... I'd like to see companies succeed because they make a quality console and quality games that people want, not because they are being subsidized.

It would be interesting to see numbers on what each company has invested in infrastructure, maintenance, and the "free" games on offer.  If they are making a huge profit on these services then I'd be less ok with it.

Legally speaking, in the vast majority of the cases it is fair since there's hardly a law against charging for online services. From an ethical point of view, anyone's mileage may vary. On one hand server costs get covered and other online infrastructure becomes well maintained or improved such as better network security, game servers remain longer for the duration of it's lifetime and content is better archived but on the other hand the costs are passed down to the customers ...

on the surface, no, but most companies that do offer rewards or extra incentives that help justify the price. Xbox Live and PS+ both offer users 4 free games every month that they can continue to play once the month is over. Nintendo is going to start using a more simplified model with a much cheaper fee and fewer games per month.

To me it isn't but to others it may be. It depends on the person.

Nope. Not fair.

Sure, have a subscription service for games, but don't put the online component of games you've paid for behind a paywall.

Don't get mad at me for perceiving your post as it read as you admit it was poorly worded. 

I get that people who only want one thing (online play) may not be satisfied with what they're paying for, but I don't think that anyone can deny that the product improves as we've gone along. I would argue that the sub costs are mutually inclusive. Yes, they make a ton of money of them, but it's not like that money doesn't get reinvested into their network offerings. 

As far as PSN on PS3 with Plus/free online, they did have a few million subs who only chose to pay for the extras, but you also had people non-stop complaining about poor service with PSN, especially when compared to XBL. You hardly ever hear those types of complaints anymore. :shrug: People will always find something to complain about.

Yes, many people wouldn't mind to pay the subscription to get the extras, but the thing is, it's mandatory to pay whether you want extras or not.