By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 15 August 2013
Edit Thread
sales2099 said:
pokoko said:

No, that math doesn't work when you consider that PS+ doubled subscribers after E3.  Actually, even beyond that, PS+ membership likely spiked again at the end of the year.  Because of that, even though membership more than doubled, it's mostly going to be back heavy, with the average contribution from most members being way under the yearly amount.  Your figure will only give us the least members possible and is probaby way off the actual number.

Also, a LOT of people got a free month or more during the holiday season when they bought a PS3 or Vita.  That's what I did.  So, even though I became a member in 2012, I didn't pay until 2013.

Considering we had no numbers of it "doubling" after E3......that only means the numbers were that much lower.

You can't dismiss math. Im sorry it doesn't work like that. Divide 2012 revenue of $140 million and you have 2.8 million suscribers in December 2012. This isn't a exact figure but a estimate based on whatever information we have been given. Im sorry but you shouldn't be defending this because you don't agree with the answer.

You say whatever hypotheticals you want, I just did some simple math. Less then 3 million subs on a optional service that is only 2 years old isn't bad per-se, it just means it has a long way to go to pull Live Gold numbers.

Dismiss math?  Defending what?  I'm not dismissing math or defending anything, I'm just saying that your math won't give us a good estimate, it only gives us the lowest number possible, as it assumes every member paid $50.  You know that's a false assumption.

How about we go the other route and assume every single member paid the minimum of $18.  That's math, too, isn't it?  Would you have a problem with that?  Do you understand what I'm saying now?