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

bobgamer on 15 August 2013
Conina said:
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.

Well yes, but that would be reaching and totally speculative. We could have an infinite amount of possibilities of the division of said revenue...



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
Around the Network
bigd615 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.

Of course it's the bar set for paywalls on online MP. Nobody else has done it. That's what I'm saying. PS+ for PS3 wasn't close to being the same thing as Live so the number of subscribers can't really be compared as they are completely different products.

Consensus on Internet forums? A few hundred or thousand people out of a possible few hundred million. That's a horrible sample size especially when I believe over 75% of the people on the forums have Xbox live or ps+ (Guessed number so don't ask for a source). When in reality far fewer than half the people who own a console have either one. 



pokoko on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:

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.

Now it would appear that you're just being insulting.  I don't actually give a fuck what the number is, I never had a problem with that.  I have NO IDEA what you're talking about with "on sale", either.  I'm just trying to make you understand that basing everything off a $50 membership when there is an $18 membership as well is BLOODY STUPID.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that your being obtuse on purpose or you'd understand that the average paid per member is going to be somewhere between $50 and $18.  This isn't complicated whatsoever.



Jay520 on 15 August 2013

But how much will they lose though.



bobgamer on 15 August 2013
bigd615 said:
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.

Of course it's the bar set for paywalls on online MP. Nobody else has done it. That's what I'm saying. PS+ for PS3 wasn't close to being the same thing as Live so the number of subscribers can't really be compared as they are completely different products.

Consensus on Internet forums? A few hundred or thousand people out of a possible few hundred million. That's a horrible sample size especially when I believe over 75% of the people on the forums have Xbox live or ps+ (Guessed number so don't ask for a source). When in reality far fewer than half the people who own a console have either one. 

And i am not sure why he's picking so much on PS+ slow start. If you look at XBL's numbers, you'll see that in its early years the amount of money it generated was not so high as well seeing how last year was responsible for 1.25B of the 4.7B it made in its entire run since 2002 (we can safely assume that 2011 brought in another ~1B and by decreasing the amount of revenue each year (because Gold was not immediatly bought by 25mil people) 2004 or so isn't left with much revenue...)



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
Around the Network
LiquorandGunFun on 15 August 2013

sounds good! we as gamers need sony,M$ and nintendo to do well for the gaming industry, unless you want to settle for shitty android systems that are coming our way.



 

Conina on 15 August 2013
bobgamer said:
Conina said:
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.

Well yes, but that would be reaching and totally speculative. We could have an infinite amount of possibilities of the division of said revenue...

So you don't think, PS Plus got MUCH more attractive with the instant game collection and that it increased the number of subscribers immensly??



bobgamer on 15 August 2013
Conina said:
bobgamer said:

Well yes, but that would be reaching and totally speculative. We could have an infinite amount of possibilities of the division of said revenue...

So you don't think, PS Plus got MUCH more attractive with the instant game collection and that it increased the number of subscribers immensly??

I absolutely do, i wasn't disagreeing with you (your thoughts are pretty reasonable and certainly possible)! I am just saying that nothing is certain when we begin to speculate like that and many times what you did can be seen as spining (by the wrong people).



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
bigd615 on 15 August 2013
pokoko said:
sales2099 said:

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.

Now it would appear that you're just being insulting.  I don't actually give a fuck what the number is, I never had a problem with that.  I have NO IDEA what you're talking about with "on sale", either.  I'm just trying to make you understand that basing everything off a $50 membership when there is an $18 membership as well is BLOODY STUPID.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that your being obtuse on purpose or you'd understand that the average paid per member is going to be somewhere between $50 and $18.  This isn't complicated whatsoever.

I have to agree with sales. Most people don't just buy an $18 membership and nothing else and if they do can they be counted as PS+ members since they no longer have the membership. Most get it for a year so $50 is the best estimate. Now the actual number most likely is more than 3 million subscribers imo as there were probably a lot of new memberships created in the later part of 2012 (including myself I believe) but that is pretty much just speculation. So while yes the number COULD be as high as 7.77 million, 1 $18 subscription, it probably isn't. It is somewhere between 2.8 and 7.77 million probably on the lower end as many members had more than 1 $18 subscription. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and there is absolutely no reason to get mad at someone for suggesting 3 million as an estimate. They might be wrong, but with the numbers given, it's the best starting point. 2013 should give much clearer numbers.



aurelounet on 15 August 2013
sales2099 said:
pokoko said:
sales2099 said:
pokoko said:

What do you mean?  No subscription numbers were announced, were they? 

Basic math based on the approximate revenue generated gives us a rough estimate of 2.8 million suscribers.

Personally, that seems spot on when it's an optional feature, marketed to a userbase that prides itself on free multiplayer.

That and the service is only a couple years old.

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.


Yes, math doesn't work like that. Now your assumption is not absolutely correct as you don't take into account the increase of subscribers during the year.

So, the 2.5 millions of accounts you are taking for granted in 2012 is an average over 2012 and not the number they really had at the end of the year, wich is the number interresting us.

During the sony conference at E3, they announced that their number of accounts increased by 144%. So if true, that means that the PS+ accounts were 144% more on 01/01/2013 than on 01/01/2012

 

so : 5000000 = 1 X + 2.44 X

x (the number of accounts on 01/01/2012) = 1.45 millions

and 2.44 X (the number of accounts they might have on 01/01/2013) = 3.55 millions

By now, they might have around 5 millions accounts if the increase is the same, or 4 if it's slowind down.

Actually, I don't really care, but I do love mathematics.