Hopefully they just keep pushing it back one more year every year, but honestly, $20 for a year is at least... reasonable? I still don't like the principle of it, but if I absolutely HAD to get online, I could stomach the annual $20 hit.
Sony is asking what... around 50$ and MS the same if not more...
20$ for having the chance to access their old school title is pretty sweet.
We will not lie, there is a reason why Nintendo online service isn't as appealing as the other two, because they don't fund the service at all except with their own budget.
$60, not $50. Same price as XBL. Granted, you can get them on sale and find deals, but that's the official price for both. I typically buy XBL cards or codes when they're around $40-45. I hate to say it but when talking about dedicated servers you get what you pay for. That's why Sony had to go paid for the latest generation, and that's why their network is much better this time around.
PC games are generally a little more flexible because there are a lot of options. You have user/clan hosted dedicated servers, non-dedicated user hosting options, and in some cases the developer is also the host and that cuts down on costs. These kinds of solutions do help relieve the cost burden. But as someone who mostly games on PC, they have their own flaws and problems (that could be an entire article). When it comes to having really good, official dedicated servers (no server lists, just a good simple online experience) they still either require a sub or in-game purchases, some kind of revenue.
I applaud Nintendo for having an even halfway decent online experience for free. I really do. But sooner or later if they want a sustainable online experience on par with Sony or MS, they'll have to charge. Or else the online gaming aspect will continue to be a drain on their resources.