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

Forums - Sony - PS4 will make $1.2bn each year from PS Plus, analyst estimates

S.T.A.G.E. on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:
So for 2012, $140 million divided by $50 = 2 800 000 suscribers

Im surprised the number is that low........it is going to be a tough battle convincing a userbase who is used to playing free online to adopt the Xbox Live model, free games or no free games.

I somehow feel any poster who argues the merits of PS Plus loses credibility from this point....since the majority of PS3 users clearly don't see the merits themselves.


It wont be tough. MS has already sold PSN Plus to enough people, most of those will continue I am sure. Sony won them over on the merit of what Plus offers not what they took away. They are just bound to gain more subscribers now. Its not like Sony it cutting them off from everything else. 



Around the Network
Shinobi-san on 15 August 2013
nightsurge said:
Shinobi-san said:
nightsurge said:

It is? Seems extremely low. Thats only like 3-4% of the userbase of PS3, and it could be less when adding in Vita. Xbox Live is closer to 30-40% I believe.

Just goes to show the Sony dominated internet is once again a flawed view of reality. Sony fans online make it seem like everyone has PS+.


Why make such broad statements about the entire Sony fanbase without any evidence what so ever? Comments like these never add to the discussion.

Despite the fact that all these numbers are pure guestimates, why on earth would you think the number of subscribers to PS+ would be higher or lower for that matter? It's completely optional. The instant game collection idea only really started gaining momentum over the last year..

Sony have also never disclosed subscription numbers.

Again i dont see why you would blindly follow a few fanatical sony fanboys on the internet about the popularity of PS+ instead of just using common sense. Same goes for Sales who seems shocked at the number. Kinda stupid imo.

My evidence is the internet and these numbers.  Am using common sense. If you don't see it, its because you are choosing not to.


Err a few Sony fanboys on the internet are saying PS+ is doing super great...you believe them then get shocked when you see what potentially could be the rght numbers.

How is that common sense?



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

bigd615 on 15 August 2013

PS+ will have a much easier time getting subscribers because of the multiplayer than Xbox did because Xbox has been doing it for years. Microsoft took crap for it in the beginning until everyone got used to it, now Sony is doing it. I don't think getting people to buy it now that they have to is that big of a problem.

Also, about thinking every Sony fan has PS+ from looking at the Internet; well it seems like every Microsoft fan has Xbox live when on the Internet when in reality (looking at the numbers from this thread) only about 25 million do, a third of the console base. That's what happens when you try to judge an entire console base from a few hundred people who probably play more games than most. I mean the people on the forums are in the minority as most people don't care enough about games to spend half their free time talking about them. So most here would obviously have the pay wall type services while others don't.

Tl/dr: Don't use Internet forums as a sample to try to judge what an entire console base is like.



pokoko on 15 August 2013
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?



sales2099 on 15 August 2013
pokoko said:
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?

With every guesstimate, you go by the full price. To my knowledge, PSN year passes are on sale less then you'd find a deal on Xbox Live Gold. But that is beside the point...you usually do the market price as the base number, in this case, $50. Again...its an estimate.

It is not the lowest possible number, its more in the middle. It could be higher, or lower. No need to take issue with it...it is what it is. If you are insecure enough to take issue with a low estimate, then thats between you and Sony to work out. Not my problem.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
bigd615 on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:

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.


Is there any reason why it needed to reach the same numbers as Live? I mean if you asked me which would have more subscribers: something that was mandatory to play games online or something that was optional and just gave benefits, I would say that the mandatory one would have more subscribers every single time (on a comparable user base).



sales2099 on 15 August 2013
bigd615 said:
sales2099 said:

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.


Is there any reason why it needed to reach the same numbers as Live? I mean if you asked me which would have more subscribers: something that was mandatory to play games online or something that was optional and just gave benefits, I would say that the mandatory one would have more subscribers every single time (on a comparable user base).

Because Live Gold is the bar set for console paywalls for online MP?

I understand where your coming from, but a general consencus here was the internet foums would have you believe the number was far higher then 3 million approx. But im sure it will go way higher when PS4 is introduced.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 15 August 2013
bigd615 said:

PS+ will have a much easier time getting subscribers because of the multiplayer than Xbox did because Xbox has been doing it for years. Microsoft took crap for it in the beginning until everyone got used to it, now Sony is doing it. I don't think getting people to buy it now that they have to is that big of a problem.

Also, about thinking every Sony fan has PS+ from looking at the Internet; well it seems like every Microsoft fan has Xbox live when on the Internet when in reality (looking at the numbers from this thread) only about 25 million do, a third of the console base. That's what happens when you try to judge an entire console base from a few hundred people who probably play more games than most. I mean the people on the forums are in the minority as most people don't care enough about games to spend half their free time talking about them. So most here would obviously have the pay wall type services while others don't.

Tl/dr: Don't use Internet forums as a sample to try to judge what an entire console base is like.

It is much easier to force a closed community to pay for a product that is free elsewhere as long as the games are good. This is why Windows Live failed and Xbox Live succeed.



bobgamer on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:
bigd615 said:
sales2099 said:

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.


Is there any reason why it needed to reach the same numbers as Live? I mean if you asked me which would have more subscribers: something that was mandatory to play games online or something that was optional and just gave benefits, I would say that the mandatory one would have more subscribers every single time (on a comparable user base).

Because Live Gold is the bar set for console paywalls for online MP?

I understand where your coming from, but a general consencus here was the internet foums would have you believe the number was far higher then 3 million approx. But im sure it will go way higher when PS4 is introduced.

Not sure why you used the internet to gauge the interest or install base of PS+. This is a naive thinking at best (but i don't actually believe you believe in this, IMO you are just taking a jab at sony fans). If you don't know that forums are populated mostly by the hardcore portion of gamers (and those are the ones that would pay for a optional service such as PS+) then i dont know man, i just don't know...



Not-so-proud owner of every current-gen system. 

Next-gen is upon us folks!

And some cool and inspiring quotes

“Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.” 
― Oscar Wilde
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.” 
― Bernard M. Baruch
Conina on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:

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.

Only if you had a constant number of subscribers the WHOLE year 2012, from January to December!

PS Plus got interesting in the middle of 2012 with the Instant Game Collection.

If the $140 million aren't evenly spread over the year, it could be something like $12 million in the first quarter (~1 million subscribers), $18 million in the second quarter (~1.5 million subscribers), $40 million in the third quarter (~3.2 million subscribers) and $70 million in the fourth quarter (~5.6 million subscribers).

So you could have around 6 million subscribers in December 2012.