So, for PSN to only need a few million subscribers, it sounds as if the whole thing is very close to being profitable.  Out of the 36 PS3's sold, we only need 3 million to reasonably expect the PSN to make a profit?  That's only 10% and is achievable imho, and even if the PSN doesn't hit that mark anytime soon, it will still go a long way towards making what was once a sinkhole for money into something that is only slightly unprofitable.  So, all said kudos for Sony

it probably already has a million subscribers.. there are over 40 million PSN accounts

whoah, so you are saying that PSN plus already has a million subscribers? 

Edit:  That was pachter's prediction for this year, that the service would have 1 millino by the end of the year, if so that's a great start.

why? I don't see this costing a lot to sony

the PSN has a lot of people just playing games on them lol , so sony has all kinds of bandwidth to pay out, and the wifi is certainly the most expensive kind of bandwidth out there as it runs on the same data networks as your laptop will, that's why your laptop internet subscription costs $70 a month lol...... mabey sony has to pay perhaps half or a quarter of that per PS3 owner, since it's a single corporate customer, and so AT&T/verizon/Tmobile only have to deal with Sony instead of 500 other companies for aumatic wifi agreements, but still this costs them some $$. 

I doubt it.  In fact I bet PSN is the major reason their Networked division has been taking losses the last few quarters.

You would be amazed how much a service like this costs to keep running.  And as a free service, there are far more users on there that simply don't take advantage of the service.  Many simply have it because they can or to use just a few features.

With XBL Gold being the only way to get pretty much all the features of Live, it drives way more usage of the service and brings in more serious customers.

I'm probably missing something here... But last I checked, Steam must have been profitable 'cause it's been around for so long already. It's not the same but it has many features that PSN has.

Maybe things are different here... But what exactly do you think is so expensive with WiFi? It's also called WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network, Wireless LAN), which means it's LAN. It has nothing to do with your internet subscription. So, what am I missing here?

exactly, but this runs off of the big telecom's data networks which power your laptop's internet (if you have a service) as well as things like text messages.  So, sony/MS have to have a pay per rate kind of agreement.  Now, Since sony is just 1 customer that they have to deal with using all of this data versus 36 million PS3 owners doing the same thing, i'd imagine that Sony would get an awesome rate off of it, but it has to be expensive as people sometimes play for 2-3 hours at a time.

it could be close..

I mean it's becoming a more attractive subscription service with the more free stuff they release every week in the U.S, and by tuesday it may have a couple of more users once europe's updates

The problem is PSN being entirely free bleeds money for Sony. PSN costs loads to maintain. Its a fact. 

Sony know this which is why the paid service is now there. I dont know why so many less people download films etc of PSn ( probably due to Blu Ray films? ) But Sony need to recoop costs of a hole in their pocket which is PSN.

It is great that consumers get for free PSN. But as a business decision it would seem it was the wrong choice. Because not enough people care that PSN is free and Live is pay. Otherwise PSN online games would get near the numbers of Live players. But it doesnt.