I will pay if its better than what i have been getting, but I hope it will be drastically cheap, like pay 8 bucks every 4 months

Well in Japan Monster Hunter Tri isn't free to play online & it doesn't even support Wii Speak. There's an example right there on what Wii pay for play might look like.

WTF!!!!
Nintendo better not even think about charging for anything even remotely close to the online model that they offer now and a few tweaks aint gone do it. In the same breath that is used when he said PAY, he should have also said REVAMP.

I understand that Miyamoto-san does not "make" those decisions but things he "suggests" or openly has opinions about may come to fruition.

Miyamoto sets a pretty low bar for what he considers to be "proactive".  Just having the barebones ability to play online isn't being proactive.  Being proactive would have been a fully-integrated online system like XBL and PSN.

Hopefully he's really referring to what they've been working on behind the scenes for the next systems and not the tacked on feature they consider online right now.

Technically, they're doing the free with benefits right now.

I'd be willing to pay $50/year if they made Virtual Console a subscription service (and opened the metaphoric floodgates on it) but that's it.

Like GameTap where you have unlimited access until the subscription runs out? If it were free downloads & keep as many titles as you want & still be able to play them after not renewing the subscription, I'd be somewhat more willing to pay for that.

I hate subscription services that take away the content when you end your subscription. They would have to do something like Napster's subscription plan, with Napter you get 5 MP3 downloads a month that you get to keep even if you end your subscription and you have the option to buy songs that you want to actually keep.

But there is no way that any company would let you download as much content you want and keep it after you end your subscription. It's pretty much a guarantee that quite a lot of people would sign up, download everything they could, then end their subscription.

No one would pay for Nintendo's online service as is. There are barely even a handful of games that include the most basic of features. You can't even communicate with the other players in many of these games. All you're doing it simply connecting and playing a fairly anonymous person. It's like being back in 1996, playing Quake online for the first time... except we could chat then! A lot of console players apparently feel that something like Xbox Live is worth paying for however, so go figure. In any case, Nintendo would have a hard time getting by with their primary audience by instituting pay-to-play as a mandatory service. Kids and casual gamers will not pay. :P

With Nintendo, I'm always amazed at what they DON'T do to get my money.  I want to give you money than I already do Nintendo, but sometimes you make it difficult.

Heck we could chat between matches even on SNES with XBand. Looking back now I'm somewhat in awe at how lagless that was considering it was all on dial-up...

As clearly evidenced by the vast number of twelve-year-olds on Xbox Live, and the constant number of people always playing Uno on there as well, right?

This. I wouldn't mind something like this. Pay $50 per year and get five downloads a month, that's 60 Virtual Console/Wii Ware games a year. Once your subscription is over, you go back to paying per game and keep the games you already paid for.

You'll run out of desirable games to download in 2 weeks.  Nintendo's not helping the selection, either.

Ugh, I hate this logic of MS online service is better and you pay for it so by paying for Nintendo's service will improve that too.

Paying for online is not a magic solution that will make the online services better. Most of the lag and problems with the online mode up to now is do to Nintendo inexperience, laziness, and or pure stupidity; not a lack of money. You don't need money to have a single friend code, or voice chat, or a better designed system. The slow online comes from the Wii's system itself (and shitty home connections) and NOT the Wii's online servers. Newer firmware versions do speed up connection and downloads speeds but with private server or even with a LAN just sending files over FTP it's still slow as hell. Nintendo will NEVER ever have custom private server option for their online games because that's way too much of a niche that most of the 99.99% for Wii owners will never even touch to bother putting in.

Hopefully Nintendo stop being arrogant and revamps the system for the Wii 2 instead of just throwing good money after bad solutions.

Does anyone still defend Nintendo's decision to not go online with the Gamecube?  It was a big hot button issue at the time.  With the online Nintendo now provides in comparision to the competition and I think it's pretty obvious that that was a big mistake.

Nintendo doesn't just have to revamp their online service to make it worth charging for.  They have to revamp the whole damn company.  Only core gamers would be willing to pay to play online so they would have to work harder to attract that audience.  They also need to vastly improve third party relations because no one would pay to play a handful of Nintendo games online and nothing else.  There needs to be a lot of games available and third party support is a must.

The thing is for all this bullshit talk about not being in competition with Sony or MS, this would put them in direct competition.  They can't be the wacky goofy outsider targetting a different audience.  This would put them directly in competition with Xbox Live and, right now, they would get absolutely creamed.

Honestly online isn't that hard to do, indie devs manage to do it on the PC all the time so not putting it on the GC doesn't really force them to have crappy online this gen, it's something else that causes that.

I like my PSN, frankly. I'm not a big online gamer anyway, but when I get that Call of Duty 4: 2 bug or want to rock some LBP, it's there, and it's free. I've never understood what's better about Xbox Live, or at least why they charge people for it. My friends tell me that it's impossible to navigate.

XBox Live is what, $50 a year? I would probably pay $4 a month for a good online service. I'm talking universal online identity and game features, and also more stable play. All Wii games have lag. The current Wii isn't powerful enough to offer this stuff though, but I think this talk is for Nintendo's next system.

Personally I've never minded friend codes and the current Wii online system as a whole, though the main reason for this is because it is free. If it were a pay-for system, there is no way I would.

When you put it that way it doesn't sound so bad.  But when you consider that over the expected life of a system generation (5 years) you're effectively doubling the cost of console ownership it's harder for me to accept paying for a service that I think should be free.

Internet for your computer isn't free. Why should it be for a game system?

My internet for my game system isn't free, I pay Comcast.

Sure it is.  I pay Comcast a monthly fee for access but Internet usage itself is free.  It covers my PC, my Wii, my TV/BRD player, my DS and my Wii.

"Internet" isn't for a computer, it's for access to magickal bits & bytes that machines can feed off of, like a fountain that dispenses water.  Comcast provides the water.

I have 5 computers in my bedroom.  I don't pay 5X worth of internet to get them hooked up.  I pay once, and multiple devices are allowed to hookup a faucet, pump, nipple, etc., -- including a gaming console.

No, we are not Comcast agents.

No it's not, if you download/Upload more than 250GB per month or want to go do something Comcast doesn't like you have to pay extra or GTFO.