By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Pachter: PS Plus needs 2-3 million subscribers for PSN to profit

Siko1989 on 03 August 2010

is playstation plus even worth it at this point? because there is more and better shit on psn that you can buy that doesnt cost monthly lol




Around the Network
Skeeuk on 03 August 2010

its worth it for those who want the content, with me i will pass.

if they add cross game chat, premium browser, a proper social network intergration like FB and TW then il prolly jump on board.

the ps3 picture viewer has fantastic FB intergration with the pictures etc if they can build on that so you can view pages its a winner.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Untamoi on 03 August 2010
dallas said:
Zkuq said:

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.

dallas said:
morenoingrato said:

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 $$. 

 

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.

Seems like you don't even know what Wi-fi means. It has nothing to do text messages or even cell phones. Heck, most cell phones don't even have Wi-fi. Wi-fi doesn't cost any more than normal internet because it goes to normal internet subscription. Wi-fi only works 20-50 meters away and then it goes through router (which normally is in your own home) to normal internet provider. So, in the end internet provider or Sony or MS never even knows you are using Wi-fi.



dallas on 03 August 2010

ok, fine so I get the terminology wrong but I still have the concept correct



Zkuq on 03 August 2010
dallas said:

ok, fine so I get the terminology wrong but I still have the concept correct

Then could you please tell us the term you meant? Because the only wireless things that PS3 has are WiFi and Bluetooth, none of which should cost them anything (unless in the United States you have to pay to all those operators just to have Bluetooth in your device). And other than that, the only losses I can imagine Sony making are upkeep costs of PSN.

Am I getting it right that you're saying that Sony has to pay operators for... something, whatever that something is? Do you mean Sony has to pay operators because all those PS3 users use their bandwidth to play games? Because I think that's a wrong idea.



Around the Network
Nomad Blue on 04 August 2010
Zkuq said:
dallas said:

ok, fine so I get the terminology wrong but I still have the concept correct

Then could you please tell us the term you meant? Because the only wireless things that PS3 has are WiFi and Bluetooth, none of which should cost them anything (unless in the United States you have to pay to all those operators just to have Bluetooth in your device). And other than that, the only losses I can imagine Sony making are upkeep costs of PSN.

Am I getting it right that you're saying that Sony has to pay operators for... something, whatever that something is? Do you mean Sony has to pay operators because all those PS3 users use their bandwidth to play games? Because I think that's a wrong idea.

I think, but i'm not sure, that they're on about mobile data plans(i.e. accessing the internet through a mobile phone network using a usb dongle/mobile phone tethering).



Zkuq on 04 August 2010

Well that should be a no. Like I said, the only wireless things in PS3 are WiFi and Bluetooth, of which either uses any mobile phone network in any way. Besides, both are relatively short range. WiFi is used to connect to your wireless router and Bluetooth for connecting devices to each other, mainly the console and controllers in this case (but headsets and such too).



dallas on 04 August 2010

what nomad blue said



Zkuq on 04 August 2010

A USB dongle to connect to internet? I haven't seen one in a PS3 ever. I have one for my laptop, though, but I'd imagine it doesn't work with my PS3. And besides, why exactly would Sony have to pay for what the user has already paid for (the internet connection).

Could someone else please crush this conversation with knowledge? For either side's advantage, as long as there's knowledge?