PlayStation Network snags 20M users, Xbox Live still way more profitable
By Ross Miller 
posted February 26th 2009 6:06PM
posted February 26th 2009 6:06PM
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
It's probably the same number as the people who use the free PSN to log onto Playstation Home and pay for clothes, houses and furniture.
No shit the numbers go in the XBox's favour. It was in a next-gen market of one for an entire fiscal year prior to there even being a Playstation 3.
Wow this is the dumbest engadget post i think theyve ever put out. headline should basically read "free service generates less profit than paid service"..
I honestly think this is good news for Sony, generating $180 million WITHOUT membership fees. That combines only games and videos (and the occasional theme).. thats a pretty hefty number for a service that only launched 3 years ago. XBOX live is more than 7 years old (for you idiots out there that more than twice as long as the PSN). Considering the time gap, sony has made extreme gains in the market that beats live's pace. Im not saying PSN will ever pass Xbox live, but i think the gap between the two will close in coming years.
Writing an entire paragraph to explain why xbox live is more PROFITABLE than psn without sony making comparisons in the story, really?
as a PS3 user, i like my free online gaming and can't imagine paying a subscription, even if it is annual. most of the features people pay for should be part of the experience and not extra.
A service with membership fee more profitable than a free one? This forces me to rethink everything I thought I knew about economics!!
I know this comment is kind of redundant, but so was the observation to which it refers, so it all balances out.
even when you calculate the membership charge the profit rate is still much higher, do the math
Wait! No one is going to question this remark: "even when you calculate the membership charge the profit rate is still much higher, do the math"??
Are you saying, if you subtract the $ paid to MS for the actual accounts, MS is making more money per subscriber?
That's amazing! I assume you have an xbox, I assume you like your xbox, and I assume you have some religious-like zealotry in favor of you x-box. So xbox is better because they are making more money on a 'per user' basis?
x-box's and ps3's networks offer 'similar' options. I DO NOT want to bait people into crap like "OH! well on xbox live you can change your background to green AND red" or anything like that. Simply: SIMILAR products are available on each network.
Take out the membership fees (that sony doesn't charge) and MS is still screwing you by charging MORE for the things that both charge for. This is your argument for x-box being better, they get more money out of you more ways? I mean, do the math! :)
As for MS being more successful, yes that appears to be the case. Keep in mind that mormanism is A LOT more successful in Utah that christianity and we all know how crazy those mormans are.
Best,
-K
Well, I have 6 accounts on Xbox Live and only 1 of them is used. One of them is my main one which is being used right now, another is for the Japan Marketplace so I can download demos like Ninja blade, and the rest were created because every time you create an XBL account you get a free month of Xbox Live. On top of that you can make one to use the forums on Xbox.com.
I'm afraid this is another reason why Xbox dominating/ owning ps3. I own both systems but my ps3 just collects dust!!!100% better online play the secret is in the headset
Can you please let us know the secret or at least explain why it is 100% better in your opinion. No....no you cant? oh I thought so. Fanboyism through and through.
NICE
ok since i actually have both xbox live on my 360 and PSN on my PS3, i cant definitively say that xbox live is well worth the per-year subscription fee. PSN lacks just about every standard feature that one would come to expect after using XBL. want to join your friend's game regardless of the game you are playing, no sir, that functionality is dependent upon the game itself. how about a game of COD4 actually starting without at least 2 lost server connections? forget it. XBL is worth the money 3x over.
I have all three. This is what their multiplayer abilities mean to me:
Wii: Great multiplayer when all players are in the same room. Horrendous multiplayer when players are in different locations.
Xbox: Decent multiplayer when all players are in the same room. Great multiplayer when players are in different locations. Excellent low level design allows friends to chat while playing different games (or watching videos or listening to music). You can invite a friend to play the game you're playing even when they're doing something else. The free headset means everyone can talk to each other right from the get-go.
PS3: Decent multiplayer when all players are in the same room. Bad multiplayer when players are in different locations. The game-centric implementation makes it difficult to find and play with friends. Vendor-centric servers means iffy server support (dropped connection issues and rubber banding far more prevalent). Requiring buy-in on a headset means most games are silent, even if you were playing with a friend, you feel very much alone.
If online multiplayer is important to you, it is well worth less than $5/month to have a Gold membership on XBL. The experience is far more gratifying in the number of rooms open, the server reliability, and most importantly, playing with friends, old and new.
Couldn't of said it better myself mate
Who wrote this nonsense? What side was he on? You've converted me to PS3 networks...ya bum.
NineT9, your right sony would make more in their 7th yr. also do we forget that its free to go online with sony! i am surpised xbox has not made way more then 1billion since they charge for looking at the login screen lol...
so since sony will break 1billion in 7yrs (for free access and online play) wouldnt that make them better overall?
but you have the brain washed gamers that fork over the money to xbox or are just spoiled and drop cheesh on the live membership..with sony you only pay for extra's not standard's
Noby could not have happened on Xbox's pay-for-play network. Continue discussing.
I'm an Xbox fan, but really there really is no comparison. A decent free online service beats an overpriced one any day. It doesn't even matter how many "features" it has, XBL is monetary rape.
In fact, Microsoft's whole pricing scheme (which seems to try tricking users out of their money with every little purchase) is by far the worst thing about Xbox.
XBL FTW!!!
Hahahaha, i like visiting Engadget for the new tech posts, but every time it's something related to consoles they manage to make me laugh. I'm starting to think i'll never see an article about the PS3 where they don't show, in one way or the other, their complete and utter Microsoft nutswinging. It's truly unbelievable.
Here's Sony announcing a huge milestone reached by the PSN and what does Engadget do? It compares the profits of a free service to those of a paid one, bahahahahaha, seriously. And of course they declare Microsoft the winner.
Mr. Ross Miller, you're hilarious. As another poster put it, you just compared the profitability of iTunes Vs. Torrents. In other terms, you managed to make one of the most idiotic posts i've ever read on this site.
While i'm here, i'll point out that those $180 million revenue from the PSN has come from users purchasing NEW GAMES AND CONTENT, while the figure thrown out for Microsoft's profit will be made up in it's vast majority of people having to pay to play games they ALREADY PAID $60 AT THE STORE FOR.
If that doesn't seem wrong to anyone else, then Microsoft's reproductive organ is very securely lodged in their rectum.
It seems that they run their news posts related to Sony by MS marketing department before they post 'em. Only marketing people can twist numbers like this.
Ohhh. PSN is "free" say the fanboys.
I guess you get what you pay for then, because in addition to being "free" it also "sucks."
Engadget, I just lost a whole lot of faith in you...
You're also forgetting how much better Live is than PSN, in every way. And are you honestly complaining about paying $50 a year for a Gold account? That's $4.16 a month. Most of us probably piss away $5 on foul fast food meals on a regular basis. In my opinion, they could charge more and still enjoy a giant subscriber base.