With the recent triumphant rise of PS+, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the comparative value of the major consoles' paid online services. There's a lot of speculation about where they can go for the next generation, but the landscape has changed considerably even during this cycle. Though PS+ is a relatively young service, it's following a similar trajectory to the way XBL was viewed during its lifetime.

The Timeline, as I saw It

I never used XBL with my original Xbox, so I don't know what it looked like then. This is mostly an examination of how things have looked this generation. And in this generation, the console warriors on the side of the PS3 always thought it was farcical to pay for online gaming. Personally, I thought the service was competent enough to justify the cost; it made for a seamless user experience that was painless and transparent for finding and playing with friends. But the fact remains it was a joke to those who didn't partake, and easily justified its expense to those who did.

Similarly, I know of few people who didn't laugh at the idea of PS+ at its outset. Why would you pay a monthly fee for an assortment of random games that vanish into the ether the moment you decide to stop paying? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the games you're actually interested in? Of course, as the service matured, Sony started to put real muscle behind it, and now it's objectively doing right by its members. I still don't pay for it; I don't have the time to play all those games, but much like XBL, I can see the value in the service being provided for the money being asked.

Gating, and how Not to

It's pretty much impossible to move content behind a paywall if it was ever free. Only a crazy person would risk the public backlash for that action. So I can understand the manic obsession with which Microsoft slaps an "XBL Gold" label on every new service that gets added to their all-purpose media streaming hub that was once a dedicated game console. But I can also see that they're pushing it to absurd limits. Flimsy pretenses of server costs aside, it's pretty clear that Microsoft's primary motivation for requiring Gold for these services is because they haven't been free yet, so it's best not to paint themselves into a corner. Even in cases where they cannot offer services at all because of their model (BBC), they're resolute in the idea that no significant new feature can be added to the Silver membership. Now they're even hamstringing their own browser by putting IE9 behind the paywall.

Since the PS3 had free online play from the outset, we all knew they couldn't charge for it in their premium service. But that doesn't mean they were strictly limited to discounts and free games, either. No, they could still put features like automatic updates behind the wall. Philosophically, they're a similar place to Microsoft, but they've already made so much free that they didn't have as many options for gated content.

What's particularly interesting to me about Microsoft's trajectory is how the market has changed in the meantime. At its inception, XBL Gold seemed like a decent investment in the ability to play games online. But now, it's standard practice for games with online functionality to include a pass or require an additional charge for that feature. The opportunity cost is the same, so it's fair to say you're paying for the feature with a new game as well. So now the publishers are trying to get money for your playing online as well. Granted, it's less about server infrastructure and more about cutting used sales, but the fact remains that customers are being charged twice for the same capability -- or worse, in the case of Silver members, being effectively charged for something they can't use because Microsoft requires a Gold membership to use it. Now obviously Microsoft has no qualms about double charging its customers; Netflix requires an external membership, Hulu+, and even ESPN all have apps that require some financial input outside of the XBL Gold membership. All the same, though, the value proposition has changed since the online pass has been introduced.

Where am I going with this?

Hell, I'm not psychic. But I'd be willing to wager that neither service changes drastically with the next gen, at least as far as current features are concerned. Sony will keep online play in front of the paywall because their service is more about a subscription to games, and Microsoft will probably beef up XBL Gold to better suit the inevitable torrent of media streaming options that will be on their next console, while keeping every single thing they can possibly justify locked away behind it. I'd like to think they'll transition it entirely to a media streaming membership, and nix the requirement for online gaming (in light of the prevalence of online passes), but nobody will make them, so there's no reason they should.