Let me preface this lengthy rant by mentioning that I am an internet veteran. While I wasn't there since "Day 1", I have been there long enough to see the rise and fall, as well as the metamorphosis, of many many things to do with both the internet and how the internet has impacted gaming. I can remember when multiplayer on a PC actually required your PC use its Dial-Up Modem to contact your friend and their Dial-Up Modem to start playing. I remember when 56Kbps was the hawtness. I then remember the rise of sites like MPlayer and File Planet and their subsequent acquisition and transition to pay sites.

This is the perfect point to segue into the topic at hand: the decrease in free services all over the gaming world in favor of "nominal fees" and "subscription services". Again, I remember when a lot of that stuff was free and watched as it changed.

At first I was adamantly opposed to such a thing. I watched sites like MPlayer fall into the GameSpy Network and begin demanding fees for everything. Of course, by this point, most PC games had developed other (much more user-friendly) methods of hosting multiplayer servers. However, File Planet asking for money was frustrating since a lot of studios weren't hosting first party downloads for their patches and updates. Now, however, distinctions are being made, premium services and basic services exists, and my indignance is starting to subside...to a degree.

I had an XBox 360 (I've had two, both of them died out of warranty) and now I have a PS3. I also have a Wii. Making headlines just a short while ago were rumblings that Sony and Nintendo were going to begin asking for "nominal monthly subscription fees" much like XBox Live. I have seen a massive wave of revulsion towards this idea, largely because neither Sony nor Nintendo deliver a very reliable internet experience. Nintendo lacks a lot of online support. The games with online play are few and far between. Sony tries harder but the PSN experience isn't very reliable. All my experience thus far (since Xmas '10) with attempting to download patches and updates for games has been horrific. The updates make it to about 35% and then stop as I get disconnected from the Playstation Network. They provide a cheap save for console fixes beacuse you can DL those to a USB flash drive on your PC and run them from the drive on your PS3.

However, if these two industry pillars were to start charging a fee like XBL (mine was about $7 a month) then we would OBVIOUSLY see vast improvements to their services. Nintendo would probably be the last to do it if only because they would need to up the online/multiplayer support for their library. Sony would probably benefit most from the income generated by an XBL-esque fee. Downloads would go more smoothly, bandwidth would be portioned out more effectively, and the over-all experience would be much more hassle-free. I know Sony already has a premium subscription service, but you can still play multiplayer and such without it. On XBL, a free account grants access to patches and updates for both the console and its games and you can purchase points to buy add-ons and games to download. You can't DL game demos nor do you have access to open multiplayer betas. I feel that if Sony were to go this route then they would follow XBL's example and offer their services in a similar fashion. And, remember, it isn't just about the people who would pay. I had an XBL Gold membership for less than one third of the time I had my 360s, but patches downloaded smoothly and quickly, and I even bought GTA Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony from the Marketplace with no problem with just the free account. I still had access to all the freebies that came with the purchase of other titles like Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect 2. I could also acquire the items in the marketplace that cost 0 points. I feel Sony would do well to try this, then they could hire more people to ensure that their online support functioned more smoothly for all.

I mentioned Multiplayer Betas and this brings me to a tangent that I want to visit: Stand-Alone Multiplayer. Back when MW2 dropped and its multiplayer began life as a glitch riddled bug-fest it brought up a real flaw: MW2 never offered a public Beta. Considering the known popularity of this title, that was a glaring over-sight. This brought up the potential that the next one would feature a stand alone multiplayer so the added income could support a staff dedicated to patching game issues quickly and efficiently. This was a bunch of garbage. To me that seemed like they intentionally sabotaged themselves in order to squeeze the gaming public out of more money. Now, with an XBL Gold membership you had free access to multiplayer public betas. These make tons of difference to the dev teams. If Sony did that then PS3 owners could have that same opportunity and then glitches and bugs could be taken care of.

As an added note after reading this: I seem like a bit of a 360 fan-boy. This is not the case at all. I'm not going to say I hate the 360 (Though I do remember the gaming public raising a collective middle finger and Micro$oft when the original XBox dropped), but I don't love it either. I was actually leaning more toward the PS3. I actually feel disillusioned by the problems that I've been having with my PS3. The only nod I would ever be able to give my old 360 over the PS3 is the network experience...and even then I prefer the fact that the PS3 has built in wireless.

I know there would be a lot of resentment if the console that offers up all of the things that it does for free were to suddenly charge for them. I think after the growing pains and awkwardness were to subside the end result would be much better for all PS3 owners. However, I feel a little resentful now because I switched to the PS3 because of all the 360 Hardware issues I've had and the PS3 suffers from network issues. If they were to start charging a fee like $7 for things like their multiplayer I would gladly pay it for at least a year if the end result was the over-all improvement of their network.