No. Gold is Gold for a reason: it is a paid service that allows access to data before free users, as well as services that cost money to service and keep running.
For all of you who think Silver/Free should have multiplayer just because others do, let's look at this from a economical perspective.
Say you're running a service out of a personal business that people have to pay for to use, LAN based gaming for instance. You charge 5 dollars an hour for the service and provide the games as well. That money can go to nearly anything: cleaning the store, improving the computers, providing rewards for loyal customers, ect.
Now, imagine that someone opened another service like this nearby and charged nothing for the same service. Would you do the same in response?
As a Business major, I would not change my services just because my competitor thinks differently. I would instead keep my business as is because I have customers who pay to receive a superior service. They would like it to be free, I'm sure, but here's why that's a poor business move.
If you are running a service that costs money to maintain, you cannot have it free unless you are taking in extra revenue elsewhere to cover the overhead costs. Now, Nintendo and Sony can make this service free if they like; that's their decision. However, there a few things that need pointing out.
First, Nintendo's online service is barren of good multiplayer content because most Japanese players game at home or in places like a gaming cafe. They're not going to charge any money for the online services because barely anyone is using them. They instead allow the service free and charge you for micro-transactions of Virtual Console titles. As a result, updates and new channels are slow to come.
Next is the Playstation Plus, Sony's pay for perks service. Anyone who has paid attention to the Playstation Plus service should know that the only thing it has over Gold on XBOX Live right now is the reduced prices on DLC and games you buy online, as well as full game trials. It does not guarantee a better online multiplayer service even though you are paying for it. Like Nintendo, Sony can absorb most of the costs since they make a lot of money on Sony branded stuff.
Lastly, PC gaming. Not much to point out here besides the fact that many gaming services that you pay for in some way are often superior to those you don't. Sure, Steam is free, but the service has gaming ads everywhere else, which provide some revenue to pay for the servers.
In short, Free and Gold should remain as they are. Now, I don't play multiplayer, unless it's a very special occasion, so a 1 month subscription is fine at those times. So, if I don't pay to play multiplayer, you may be thinking why should I support Gold? The answer is simple: because the service is for people who want to play multiplayer and are dedicated to spending time doing so.
It is not there for folks like me, and I will admit that. I use the Free service to browse for demos and videos and catch up on some Microsoft news. I have no need to pay for Gold since I don't use it, but I like the fact that during the times I do use Silver, it's reliable and responsive, unlike other 'free' services.
Free free to respond in kind. If I missed something, tell me, but don't be an ass about it.
