Well said, Peter. It's ironic that guys like ArronC07 who point fingers at consumers actually paying for product as the problem when it is, in fact, those who don't understand business and feel entitled to free gaming who are the problem and result in layoffs/closures in the gaming industry.
Even more ironic is the fact that all the people arguing against paying $3-4 a month for everything Live! has to offer didn't mind paying $400-600 for a PS3 while the alternative systems cost hundreds less.

Some of you are so naive. This was a contrived "leak" to start getting us used to the idea that we're going to have to pay to play online. They'll probably start by testing the waters with some premium content for a subscription, but when they find that's not going to generate enough revenue they will charge to play online - that's the only hook that will generate appreciable numbers.

Don't be surprised if the initial subscription service has the perk of being able to play online for the first 2-4 weeks following a new release, while free PSN members have to wait until after that time to play online (alternately, certain online game modes may only be unlocked for premium subscribers initially).

Remember my posts earlier this week about Sony moving to a paid model?....

These companies are selling to their shareholders as well as consumers. Their shareholders are not the least bit happy about the losses this division continues to have when they see a proven revenue stream from a direct competitor, which would make those losses disappear almost instantly. Considering PS3 consumers aren't purchasing enough software for the old model to work, it only makes sense for Sony to start listening to their shareholders, rather than the consumers who already bought a system. They already have our money, so even if they only get 10-20% of the existing base to buy into this it's still more revenue than they're currently getting.

I expect they'll take a two-tiered approach where initially they'll ease in with things like Qore, etc. being included in a subscription, before fully adopting MS' approach and charging for online play. Make no mistake though, PS3 owners will be paying to play online before this generation is done.

Hey, at least we're not complaining about them giving out the occassional 5's as those are so much fun to read. :)

Yes, it's all very silly. A little reflection should make it obvious why we always see the highest scores this time of the year. This is the season that dominates sales in this industry, so OF COURSE publishers are going to release their best, AAA games this time of the year. They save their best games for the Holidays - it's been happening since the industry started.

This isn't rocket science and there's no grand conspiracy.

That is certainly true, Alex_V - but the only reason they don't charge currently is that they don't have a competitive product yet. I doubt Nintendo will ever understand online, but Sony should get their act together within a few years and will almost certainly start charging (either the nickel-and-dime approach or a subscription service like Live!) because they simply can't afford to keep eating those costs. The PS3 "free" approach currently shifts some of the cost burden to publishers/developers - who are increasingly vocal about their displeasure of having increased support costs for the system with the fewest software sales.

Even PC has shifted - MMORPG's charge exponentially more than Live! each month just to play a single game and pc developers are increasingly shifting away from dedicated servers. The free ride is coming to an end - MS just saw it before most of their competitors did and benefited as a result.