PlayStation Network snags 20M users, Xbox Live still way more profitable

Sony announced a landmark this week for its PlayStation Network: 20 million users worldwide, as of February 20. According to the presser, that breaks down to 5 million in the first 14 months of service, 5 million more 8 months later, and an additional 10 million the 7 months after that. There's quite a few caveats to consider here, as that includes PSP and PS3 users as well as anyone who wishes to use the official PS forums, whether or not they own one of the aforementioned consoles.

However, more interesting to us is a note about the service generating $180 million life to date in revenue. It's a stark contrast to Xbox Live's reported $1 billion revenue since its 2002 launch, as of E3 2009. Based on figures from leaked to Seattle P-I this week, which said XBL had 10 million subscribers worldwide and a 56 percent Gold subscriptions rate in February 2008, we can do some fuzzy math. Assuming those Gold members paid the $50 annual subscription -- or $4.16 monthly, the cheapest per month option -- that amounts to $23.3 million for the month, not accounting for discounts or free Gold trials. Presuming no subscription growth for sake of argument -- we know it's growing -- that's $280 million annually, well over PSN's life to date revenues. Say what you will about mean ol' Microsoft charging for online play, the numbers seem to go in its favor.

[Via Joystiq]

Read - Leaked XBL data
Read - Comparing XBL vs. PSN
Read - Sony press release

[mamoo @ Feb 26th 2009 6:15PM]

Crash and BURN Sony, you evil bastards!

[KAIKAI @ Feb 26th 2009 6:27PM]

well we can all agree on the fact
that we wont see a free full featured xbox live for a LONG time =\

[john @ Feb 26th 2009 7:19PM]

Sony is the evil one? Wait, who's the one that's letting us play online for free and not milking use $50-$60 a year to simply play our games online? Not Microsoft

But But teh xbox live is better!!!!

xboxlive is marginally better and at the end of the day, you still have to pay to play you video games on your game console online where with sony it comes right out of the box. Plus the features that make live supposedly better, actually come for free, so the only thing you are paying for is to play online :P

[NineT9 @ Feb 26th 2009 10:05PM]

correct me if im wrong... but:

In 7 years, XBlive reported $1 Billion in revenue since 2002

In 2 years, PSN reported $180 Million in revenue since 2007

so if you do the math... in its 7th year PSN will be at atleast $1.08 Billion?

So how is MS doing better?

Is my math wrong? Has PSN been here longer or something?

[Jim @ Feb 26th 2009 10:34PM]

@NineT9:

If you lack basic reading and comprehension skills, then yeah, you would probably figure that PSN is more profitable than Xbox Live. Tthe author of this article just wrote how XBL makes ~$280mil per year in subscription fees alone, which almost doubles PSN's life-to-date total. I'm sure XBL was much less profitable in the first couple years... I wouldn't doubt if XBL made $500 million in the last year or so alone (DLC, movies, tv shows, etc.).

[Alan Strangis @ Feb 26th 2009 11:10PM]

@ john: And if you have used both services with any amount of regularity, you'd know that "marginally" doesn't even come into the picture. Xbox LIVE is a far superior service to PSN. Yeah, it costs $50/yr but it's seamlessly integrated.

The ONLY thing that I like about PSN is that even though it's free, its voice chat isn't as muddy as Xbox (tested multiple times with the same people).

Beyond that, LIVE all the way.

[Geir E @ Feb 27th 2009 1:45AM]

So because Microsoft charges you for xbox live, Microsoft is better? (revenue)

[KarlW @ Feb 27th 2009 4:42AM]

People keep saying this about XBL being more 'integrated' than PSN, but I don't see it. I really don't.

How is it more integrated than PSN in any meaningful way? In fact, with Home and game launching, you could argue the PSN is more integrated.

[spyyder @ Feb 26th 2009 6:15PM]

Really engadget? A paid service more profitable than a free service?

You guys wouldn't happen to be the ones that put that report of a ps3 w/o blu-ray coming soon? Got any stock picks too?

[pk @ Feb 26th 2009 6:25PM]

Yea, this is such a stupid point...

Guess what, iTunes have gained more profit than torrents. -_-"

DUH

[pk @ Feb 26th 2009 6:25PM]

*has

[Sean @ Feb 26th 2009 7:55PM]

That is exactly what i was thinking. I am very dissapointed in engadget for posting such an obvious article. FREE vs. PAID do the math

[Levi @ Feb 26th 2009 9:07PM]

Ehh, to be fair, these articles are just regurgitations of other articles or quotes or whatever. At the same time, sometimes they do further add to an incorrect or unfair item that the public latches onto. Like this, for example. Comparing the revenue that XBL brings in vs PSN is like comparing apples and oranges. Over at Joystiq, readers and fanboys were all furiously calculating their own versions of how much of that revenue was from XBL gold subscriptions... it's pointless, but it does make it seem to the public like XBL is just something else Mircrosoft is doing better.

[KarlW @ Feb 27th 2009 2:37AM]

Exactly. It's a ridiculous point to say XBL makes more money than PSN. With PSN, the goal isn't to make as much money as you possibly can.

The PSN started off behind - XBL had already been running for years on the original Xbox, whilst Sony couldn't realistically add it to the PS2 with any more system integration than it had. They're running it now to build up the userbase and infrastructure. The best way of doing that is to make it free, but you'll sacrifice money in the short-term.

[spaceman @ Feb 27th 2009 7:20AM]

You're missing half the point here. The idea led by the article is that PSN has twice the number of registered users than XBL and yet it's still earning.

And don't give me this crap about PSN being free. If it's earning $180M then somewhere, somehow, it still charges you for the services.

[spaceman @ Feb 27th 2009 7:22AM]

... still earning less*.

[NHAnimator @ Feb 27th 2009 8:24AM]

"And don't give me this crap about PSN being free. If it's earning $180M then somewhere, somehow, it still charges you for the services."

Oh, I will give you crap. PSN is free. I have spent exactly zero dollars (that's zero with a 0) using the PSN. My Burnout Paradise has been heavily upgraded using my (free) PSN account.

Since getting my PS3, I have spent a total of about $25 for three downloadable games. That may be the source of the $180M figure. But I do not pay for PSN.

As a sidenote, I felt bad for MS falling behind and just signed up for a free Silver account. Not sure what I'm going to do with it considering I don't own an Xbox, but what the hey! That tightens the race up a bit.

[MaxSMoke @ Feb 28th 2009 2:26AM]

For a "Free" service, Sony is making Bank off of me. I buy new online games every week for my PS3, since they are always gorgeous and innovative titles. I've spent several hundred dollars on downloadable games alone for my PS3. I can't say as I've even bought half as many for my 360. PAIN beats %95 of all 360 downloadable games, hands down.

And as far as integration, the only things I need are voice chat and friend support. The reason these features on both the PS3 and 360 are lost on me. Achievements, trophies, video chat, instant message, avatars, blah... All filler. Never use them.

[Saad Rabia @ Feb 26th 2009 6:17PM]

20M including millions of only-forum users. Xbox Live's users are all actual silver and gold users who happen to all use Xbox Live.

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 6:30PM]

Not true I can got to the xbox website and make new silver accounts all day and not own an xbox.

[Temple @ Feb 26th 2009 7:06PM]

If you look at it another way, there are *almost* 20 million people that can play online with the Playstation, only the paying customers get to do so with Xbox Live, which is a little more then half of the people playing are Gold, the rest are plain old Silver- who can't play online.

[Tonicboy @ Feb 26th 2009 8:12PM]

@Temple

But according to the article, I belong in the category of "...anyone who wishes to use the official PS forums, whether or not they own one of the aforementioned consoles". So, I am part of the PlayStation Network but have no ability to play online.

[benjasmine @ Feb 26th 2009 8:15PM]

Well, let's assume 50% of all PSN users are forum-only users. There are still 10 million users left who can use PSN for free. That's way more than the XBL gold users... And I doubt there are 50% forum-only users, so 10 million is probably a conservative estimate... also don't forget that PSN was launched 4 years after XBL.

and i would say it's quite successful to generate $180 million in revenue without subscriptions...

[zomg0t @ Feb 26th 2009 6:19PM]

That is a remarkably shitty image.

[Edward @ Feb 26th 2009 6:24PM]

Seriously, that looks like it is a blown up image of a pool game from my pos nokia phone.

[Down @ Mar 4th 2009 7:17PM]

It is creative but the quality is shit.

[RioRyan @ Feb 26th 2009 6:44PM]

Somebody's missing some colours..

[conor @ Feb 26th 2009 7:50PM]

Yeah, bad MS Paint, not Photoshop definably.

[paul @ Feb 27th 2009 1:23AM]

The shitty image fits well with the shitty post.

[Shattered Ice @ Feb 26th 2009 6:23PM]

Some members of sony's forums also count as members (which includes me probably).

[The Dude @ Feb 26th 2009 6:27PM]

LOL @ Sony for counting people who may only be PS forum members.

[Kyle @ Feb 26th 2009 6:28PM]

XBox Live means you have to PAY just for the privilege of paying to do download anything or play game online that you already own. PSN is free which would you want.

[Sora @ Feb 26th 2009 6:34PM]

You can buy things from the Marketplace as a Silver member...

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 6:47PM]

@sora yeah you just have to wait a week longer.

[Hafk @ Feb 26th 2009 7:05PM]

bry2an

Only for free content.

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 7:11PM]

@ Hafk

Well that isn't really much better that you have to pay to access free content a week earlier. I know with the xbox there is no other choice that is why it works.

[Hafk @ Feb 26th 2009 7:28PM]

If you can live without online multiplayer, I am pretty sure you can wait a week for free DLC. Most people with silver accounts are too busy to spend a bunch of time gaming online anyway.

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 6:28PM]

How did this story become a positive story on XBOX LIVE. You just figured out Microsoft is making 280 Million a year from subscription fees to play online while Sony is giving this away for free and they have 20 million people doing this. Yeah Sony really should be screwing over their customers as well if they want to make more money. That is just crazy. Also comparing totals of a service that has been around since 2002 to a service that started in 2006 is not very equal. I understand Live is older.

But why does this article have to become a positive story for Microsoft instead of the news that Sony has 20 million PSN accounts.

[John @ Feb 26th 2009 6:34PM]

Because PSN and XBL are competing with eachother for users and Sony's figures are largely meaningless because having an account is absolutely no indication you'll use it, as you can create one just to use for the Sony forums. From my own experience, it's quite possible there's a large amount of just plain dead accounts - every roommate or friend that has spent more than a couple hours on my PS3 has created a PSN account and since only one of them has a PS3 of their own I somehow doubt that those accounts are getting much use. XBL however costs money so it's unlikely there are millions of 'idling' accounts out there.

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 6:53PM]

@John

Well I have many friends over that make accounts on my XBOX and don't own one. So not much can be said about that. I think you make a large assumption that most xbox live users are xbox owners. I mean I have said this before the silver acount is free and you don't need to own an xbox to make one.

I agree they are both numbers but how does this story of 20 million PSN accounts = Live is more profitable.

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 26th 2009 7:11PM]

I'm trying to figure this one out myself... as a gamer, this shows PSN as a better service by not gouging their customers for something that's been free on the PC for years... as a shareholder (which I'm not) it's only beneficial for MS.

[Shaun @ Feb 26th 2009 9:07PM]

MS is not making that much, I work IT at an enterprise in the US, you will not believe the costs that go into running such a network...just to give you an idea a 14 TB storage server is $100,000 a compute server goes for $10,000+ depending on the configuration, MS made the right choice charging a small fee per year ($50 a year is extremely insignificant), it gives them the ability to expand their infrastructure and add more servers, to keep up with demand it will also help them future proof their system, Sony will most likely eventually charge a few someday and for some of their games they already have started this trend. Also I've been a PC gamer for along time and I hate when I see people say it free for PC users to play online. This maybe true for some but PC gaming servers would not exist if gaming communities didn't fork over money every month to pay for server hosting, which cost around a $100 a month. Also you can get a 13 Month card to XBL on amazon for around $30 to $40.

[BigD145 @ Feb 26th 2009 9:22PM]

They're Microsoft. They expand their infrastructure when a butterfly flaps its wings in Australia.

[bry2an @ Feb 26th 2009 10:29PM]

@Shaun

Well with Live you are not paying for dedicated servers your paying for the right to play p2p online. Big Difference. Maybe just maybe when you buy a game you are paying for the software to play online.

[KarlW @ Feb 27th 2009 4:50AM]

Microsoft make $1Bn in profit (not revenue -- profit) every month. I don't think they care.

[Shaun @ Feb 27th 2009 7:33PM]

@bryan

That,s partially true, if all games were peer to peer you would see alot of lag because most people don't know how to put port forwarding on, if you go read a lot of the articles that are up on the net the developers have the choice weather or not to make it peer-peer or client-server. GOW most likely is peer-peer because I can't have people join games I start most of the time because I'm behind my colleges Firewall and they shape traffic, however I have no trouble with GTA4 which has to be server based because theirs no way my xbox would be able to handle tracking 15 other players while processing the actual game play with only 512MB of RAM. Also if you read PSN does the same thing, SOCOM for instance is server based were as many of the racing games are client hosted(p2p).

[Shaun @ Feb 27th 2009 7:25PM]

Your wrong its the other way around PSN is peer-peer and XBL is client based...check out this article by gamespot.

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Some_One_Plays/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25341542&print=1

hence why you pay for service for XBL, and why MS keeps building new data centers.

[Shaun @ Feb 27th 2009 7:41PM]

Sorry please ignore my last post I jumped the gun with that one...it turns out that I was actually right in my replay before hand its up to the developer and both networks, XBL and PSN, utilize both server and peer-peer based networks.

[Extinction @ Feb 28th 2009 5:04AM]

Live is peer to peer, PSN is server based. Sorry

[Eugene @ Feb 26th 2009 6:30PM]

you would think after charging everyone $50 for xbox live, they would make things like themes and gamerpics free. i would love to see sales numbers on those things by the way. it would give an accurate reading on the percentage of dumb idiots that are on xbl.