Checking online, this is truly, truly pathetic.
I like a lot of Sony's titles and one of the most nonvenomous reasons I didn't want a 360 was because of the free online multi-player play.
Now with the PS4 rolling in PS+ in order to play online, all my money I was going to set aside for a PS4 is now going towards either charity or a brand-new PC. I purchased the WiiU and love playing on it still.
But it seems to me Sony is going in the opposite direction along with Microsoft. Most of the games releasing are just single player and you can almost never find any split-screen co-op/vs. games anymore. If the games are following this trend where online is necessary to even play with friends, then it isn't worth it. In fact, a lot of games are following the need online to play with or against each other. Whatever happen to the days where you could invite a few friends over to play Mario Party, Power Stone, Halo or even Wipeout? It looks to me its just their pipe dream to gauge us for more money.
The exclusives for PS4 are pretty good, such as Infamous: Second Son and Diablo 3; Xbox One has some good launch titles too, such as the new Halo and the Witcher 3; but now I'm turned off from both consoles and looking up to nintendo.
I may as well start my own console project!!! My only worry about that though is it doesn't end up like the Ouya.
Thats my two cents, you can agree or disagree, take your pick.
I don't really see it as much of a con, seeing as PS+ has quite a few perks that go along with it. Compared to Xbox Live, which restricts quite a bit on the 360 and even more on the Xbone if you opt not to buy it, PS+ is far less punishing when it comes to whether one wants to pay for the service or not. While I don't endorse the idea, the fact that PS+ is so rewarding makes the idea of paying for it far less painful, especially since those that don't want to or can't can still use the many online applications and services (which isn't the case with Live). In that sense, I would actually say that the two are only really similar in that they both allow access to Online Multiplayer. It seems that, in Live's case, you're simply lifting the limitations from your system to make it what you paid for, while PS+ has actual perks.
Now, on a personal note, I don't generally play competitive online multiplayer in games. It's never been a deal maker or breaker for me, and I've never bought a game solely for its multiplayer. However, having the decision to play online has always been far more irksome to me than having the option. Take into consideration that last generation, 2 of the 3 released home consoles had free online. With the two free home consoles, I always had games that allowed for the option to play online. I do enjoy multiplayer, but I don't play it a lot. This doesn't mean that I don't play it at all, though, so being able to play multiplayer when I feel like it is nice. In the case of Live, however, I have to decide if I want to pay for the online service just so I can play online multiplayer, but because I don't prioritize it, it would be a waste of money for me to pay for something I'll only use sometimes. This creates a sort of separate and inequal relationship between the modes in games, as well as a gamer's gaming priorities (and, consequently, the developer's). If I were someone who didn't care about the perks that PS+ had, this would be pretty much Live all over again, and I do find that to be annoying.
But will this change anything? No. Kids will still get their parents to pay for PS+ for them, just like with Live. Older gamers will weigh the perks against the cost and purchase accordingly...or just buy it so that they can play online, just like with Live. Xbox got away with this strategy with little to no repercussions, so it's no surprise that Sony is promoting the same strategy with their service that they know to be much better.