Number of PSN users hits 20 million

By Robert Purchese Published 25 February, 2009

Plus: 4 million going Home, says Sony.

Sony has announced that over 20 million people have registered a PlayStation Network account, and that 4 million of those use PlayStation Home.

That's according to website VentureBeat, presumably reporting from the Destination PlayStation event in the US.

That PSN figure was 17 million back in January, and includes PS3, PSP and website sign-ups.

At last-count, Xbox Live had 17 million subscribers. Microsoft told us yesterday that over half of these are Gold members.

But comparisons could be misleading; Sony charges nothing for full PSN privileges, whereas Microsoft asks Gold members for GBP 40 every 12 months. The latter results in a whopping (and estimated) GBP 380 million each year.

Around a third of all Xbox 360 owners have yet to sign up for Live. However, nearly all PS3 owners claim a PSN account.

VentureBeat adds that there are more than 14,500 items on offer from PSN, and that over 380 million pieces have been downloaded, resulting in around USD 180 million changing hands.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (48) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • TurboBailey #1 3 years ago

    So 20% use home?

    FAIL

  • menage #2 3 years ago

    What disc said. It's a warped number. Although I must admit I also have 3 Live accounts.

  • moggsy #3 3 years ago

    Well I have 3 PSN accounts too - Europe, US and Japan. I suspect you you can at least half that 20 million figure.
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 09:06

  • the_dudefather #4 3 years ago

    @Menage

    yeah, a lot of people tend to get new gamertags quite often for free online play (and no firends list I guess) apparently

  • NotSoSlim #5 3 years ago

    Well both companies numbers are flawed...simple.

  • Eighthours #6 3 years ago

    4 million downloaded Home. How many never used it after the first laughable try? Probably somewhere around 4 million. :)
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 09:29

  • Les #7 3 years ago

    "Well I have 3 PSN accounts too - Europe, US and Japan. I suspect you you can at least half that 20 million figure."

    I think you're overestimating our numbers. While the majority of PS3 owners that frequents this site has multiple PSN accounts, we're still a minority (same goes btw for the people with multiple live accounts).

  • El-Dev #8 3 years ago

    Why have more than 1 account?
    Never understood that.

  • TopKatt #9 3 years ago

    Yep, only one PSN account for me.

    Actually, now I come to think of it, I never deleted my old xbox live account and still get emails from them so I must be showing in both sets of figures, lol.

  • menage #10 3 years ago

    @El-Dev

    Japanese USA EU have different content
    Also I'm also Dutch and need to buy my shit from the Dutch store, but they have a stupid tendency to translate shit into Dutch as well which is done terriblly, so I needed a UK account as well to avoid crappy translation in trailers and stuff
    Edited by 2 at 25/02/09 @ 09:44

  • MiY4MOTO #11 3 years ago

    I have 3 PSN ones & 3 Xbox live ones. (1x gold & 2x silver) As for why multiple accounts... it's simple, each one is tied to a different territory (US, Europe & Jap) since each one has different demos / downloads on their respective market place.

    I suspect a lot of people out there have multiple, but to be honest if I had to pay for the PSN service I would have cancelled it after the first month. Sony really need to look at what Microsoft are doing with their service. The SDF shout about the fact that their service is free, but lets face it... would any of us pay for what it offers?

  • Xerx3s #12 3 years ago

    the_dudefather: XBL has a purging policy I don't know the exact interval but accounts not used for an X amount of time that aren't gold accounts are deleted.

  • stampax #13 3 years ago

    I downloaded Home. And went on once.

  • Goodfella #14 3 years ago

    Sony really need to look at what Microsoft are doing with their service. The SDF shout about the fact that their service is free, but lets face it... would any of us pay for what it offers?

    Stupid argument. Would it be the same service it is now if we were paying for it?

  • menage #15 3 years ago

    @Goodfella

    Yeah, not really relevant. Company's themselves host the services, and while I have gold on my 360 I only play LBP, Burnout, SC4 and SF4 online on my PS3 (all work great). I'm Cancelling Live when it expires, I never play online with it.. The only thing I'm paying for is demo one week earlier at the moment.
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 09:59

  • MiY4MOTO #16 3 years ago

    @ Goodfella

    Thats kind of my point, I'd rather have a great service that I pay for, rather than a free one that's a shadow of what it should be.

  • Goodfella #17 3 years ago

    At the end of the day it does what it says on the tin, as they say, and the fact it's free is a big plus to a lot of people. It seems it's only Live veterans that feel the need to compare and slag the PSN off.

  • kar #18 3 years ago

    Sorry, but going 'home'?!

    I've gone there twice, and that was enough for me, I wonder if I'm counted as a 'home' user then?

  • AusFreelancer #19 3 years ago

    @ stampax
    "I downloaded Home. And went on once."

    Heh the same could be said for 20 million other subscribers, including myself ; )

    As for PSN, it bloody free, is there any surprise that it has more users. And yes i have 3 of them.....and so do you ya broke xbots. ;)

  • ralphwolfenstein #20 3 years ago

    This number is massively unrepresentative, as it's suggesting that close to 100% of PS3's are connected to PSN, whereas the actual figure is most likely to be much less than the % of 360's connected to Live. And the spin is invariably what gets reported as fact:

    "However, nearly all PS3 owners claim a PSN account."

    This is clearly bullshit.

    The point that many PS3's have multiple accounts also counts for MS, so that's not the issue. But anyone with a connected PSP (installed base - tens of millions) also counts towards the total PSN number - so Sony are drawing on about double the total hardware install base to reach a comparable number of 'connected' users

    But the real sneaky part is where they say "Includes 'website' accounts" - as anyone who registers on any Sony website - playstation.com, killzone.com etc - also has to create a PSN account. Microsoft might as well assert that anyone with a passport account / hotmail is an Xbox Live user...

  • Les #21 3 years ago

    "Thats kind of my point, I'd rather have a great service that I pay for, rather than a free one that's a shadow of what it should be."

    Thing is, you're in a minority. Most people don't want to pay for an online gaming service. Most people don't even care about playing games online. What MS did is smart in so far that it tied the hardcore gamers to its platform with a good service. But it is stupid in the sense that it provides a hurdle for mass adoption of online gaming. In that regard, Sony and Nintendo have a more clever strategy. Though giving it away for 'free' now will make it almost impossible to charge for it later once they are established services as many internet services (e.g. hotmail) have discovered in the past.

  • Monkey_Puncher #22 3 years ago

    Most people? Microsoft's Xbox Live Gold Stats to me look pretty healthy.

    I have a feeling Sony are pulling these Home figures out of their arses. I mean honestly, how many people have actually stuck around after the initial download of Home and find out there's fuck all to do moment? There can't be that many idiots around who like to either A) chase female avatars around and pretend to e-fuck their legs B) play as said female avatar and have more friends than they're ever likely to have in real life.

  • Moz #23 3 years ago

    @moggsy "Well I have 3 PSN accounts too - Europe, US and Japan. I suspect you you can at least half that 20 million figure. "

    You see there your assuming that the majority of PSN and Live users are hardcore types like all us on EG but that really isn't the case. the figure on both systems are warped. Several of my friends have set-up live accounts on my 360 to get the free gold for a month so we can play a game online there and then but have never ended up getting their own 360.

    These figures mean jack, server figures for individual games mean so much more. but again with out know exactly what the figure is reporting it's also useless to you

    for example the 4 million stated home users, is that how many people have logged on since it was launch, or how many people signed in over the last week?? with out qualify what they mean by user the data is useless

  • Moz #24 3 years ago

    @ralphwolfenstein "Microsoft might as well assert that anyone with a passport account / hotmail is an Xbox Live user..."

    whilst they don't go that far, you find yourself ending up with a silver account if you use Live for windows, so watch the figures spike now that dawn of war 2 is out.

  • Darren #25 3 years ago

    Like many I'd wager, I have multiple accounts for my Xbox 360 and PS3; three each in fact, so these figures are a bit misleading. In the 360's favour, that probably means that the percentage of Gold subscribers is slightly higher than Microsoft claim since it's unlikely that people will be paying for more than one (unless they're mad).

    Personally, I like the free online service that Sony offer on the PS3. Oh it's not perfect, far from it, but then neither is Xbox LIVE but you have to pay £40 per year for that. £40 for a service that even manages to lag on the dashboard while messaging! For all its faults, PSN works well and you can hardly grumble at something that is completely free anyway.

    I don't play games online much but at least on the PS3 and PC I don't have to pay for the luxury when I do. It's the reason I've decided that I'm no longer going to pay the £40 Xbox LIVE subscription fee when it expires in October. Yeah, it's ONLY £40 which when spread over a year is nothing but what am I doing giving Microsoft, a company not exactly short of funds anyway, the money when I'm not getting anything for it? Oh I remember... it was on the off chance that I might want to play games online and so I could download demos a week earlier than Silver users (I think the latter policy sucks to be honest since demos are just advertising).

    I really can't see why Microsoft even charge for it in the first place since the Friends list, messaging and voice-comms are part of the Xbox 360 and available to Silver users as well as Gold ones. I don't play games online but I use those features to communicate with people I've known from the OXM forums for years as wel as friends and relatives. Nor does that Gold subscription guarantee you lag-free gaming, any more than PS3 and PC owners get for free either.

    So just what DO you really get for that £40 per annum that you don't get for free on the PS3 or PC? :?

  • Widge #26 3 years ago

    DO NOT QUESTION XBOX LIVE DARREN

  • lambtron #27 3 years ago

    "For all its faults, PSN works well and you can hardly grumble at something that is completely free anyway. "

    Well all I can speak about is my personal experience of PSN. My own personal experience of it is it's so bad that each time I end up switching the PS3 off in disgust. The MGO saga was a farce. Still haven't played it online. I bought my PS3 to play games damn it - not watch 1GB patches download. Then there is GT5Prologue - is it even possible to race against friends yet? Last time I checked it wasn't and this is functionality that was available on the ORIGINAL xbox. Honestly, PSN is free but for my needs (jump quickly into games with my friends) it sucks huge giant donkey dick.

  • Les #28 3 years ago

    "Most people? Microsoft's Xbox Live Gold Stats to me look pretty healthy."

    Yes, but those Live Gold members are still a minority. There's around 21m PS3 users, 47m Wii users and 12.5m 360 users that don't pay for online gaming. Live Gold members constitute around 16.5% of the ownership of current gen consoles. I would call that a minority.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #29 3 years ago

    I've had around 15 PSN accounts. They are no harder make than making EG sock accounts, and made for similar reasons.

    In fact, I would guess the majority of PS3 users hold multiple accounts. Some folk want to change a crap username; some make up a new 'amusing' or abusive username on a weekly basis. Some even change username to fit a new clan.

    It's all free so what does it matter? Xbox LIVE gold accounts, on the other hand, are far more accurate for giving an idea of userbase.
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 12:00

  • IneptPercy #30 3 years ago

    The biggest worry about PSN being free to me is how long will they run services for, as it is you connect to certain servers for certain games which is all well and good. But eventually if a certain game isn't being played much the server will get shut by whoever is paying for it eventually.

    By contrast Xbox live being centralised means I can still play any game, by all means nobody is playing them most of the time but me and a few mates got together on the original flatout a few weeks ago, I would guess that if the game makers where paying to keep that going then I wouldn't have been able to play.

    Just a thought.

    As for sign ups to each, who cares?

  • IneptPercy #31 3 years ago

    "So just what DO you really get for that £40 per annum that you don't get for free on the PS3 or PC? "

    vs PS3, a full interaged system which works accross all games easily.

    vs PC, the fact that not every person has an extra health patch or see through walls etc etc etc makes it worth it.

  • FooAtari #32 3 years ago

    In the year that I have had a PS3 I have yet to play a game online. I used Home once for about 10 mins and haven't been on it again.

    I've downloaded a few games. But I guess my point is these numbers are largely useless. As 1 registered account does not equall one regular user.

    Pretty much all my online gaming is done on the PC.

  • Vice.Destroyer #33 3 years ago

    @Les. Are you seriously lumping all the current gen consumers together to make your point that a minority of people pay to play online? That argument is so flawed it is not worth taking serious. There is no equivalent service on PS3 and Wii which you pay for. You can't compare that. If you can't see that, well...

  • FooAtari #34 3 years ago

    "vs PC, the fact that not every person has an extra health patch or see through walls etc etc etc makes it worth it"

    Steam removes a lot of those issues, although not entirely sadly. Although it is not in anyway down to the online platform. The lack of such cheats on Live is down to the closed nature of the system and that games cannot be modified, scripts used etc.

    £30 for Live gets you a largely P2P service full of advertising. Not the best deal ever IMO.

  • Xerx3s #35 3 years ago

    "whilst they don't go that far, you find yourself ending up with a silver account if you use Live for windows, so watch the figures spike now that dawn of war 2 is out."

    But those are still actual live accounts that are used for a game.

  • Xerx3s #36 3 years ago

    Vice.Destroyer: Why do you actually bother to read the stupidity of Les?

  • Benno #37 3 years ago

    I think we can conclude that these numbers mean nothing then :)

  • Les #38 3 years ago

    @ Vice.Destroyer

    Yes, obviously.

    While I agree (how can I not?) that there's no equivalent service available on PS3 or Wii, that's rather besides the point. Fact is that the majority of console owners (let alone potential console owners) currently don't pay for online gaming and it is very questionable that they ever will. The greatness of the paid-for Live service sure as hell wasn't enough to convince them to use it.

    Of course other factors play a role as well when choosing a console but that only strengthens my point of the current irrelevance of online services.

  • Burkey123 #39 3 years ago

    From my experience on both online services, Xbox Live is the better service. In game voice chat is the main thing that PSN is missing. Also trying to start a game with friends on Xbox Live is miles easier than PSN. No cross game invites on PSN. Once you get into a game though, the amount of lag is pretty equal.
    Overall, Xbox Live > PSN
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 12:58

  • makeamazing #40 3 years ago

    Paying to play games online imho is a real bad idea and could lead to a two tier system. I'm already paying for ADSL, why do i want to pay for something that i can get free on the PC. There are rumblings in the non gaming sector about charging for sites/content and I've never liked the thought of this idea, hopefully playing games online will continue to be free.

  • penhalion #41 3 years ago

    These figures only impress investors and shareholders. As the comments on this forum show, the real gamers already know the figures are pure nonsense.

  • Ryze #42 3 years ago

    I have 2 PSN accounts, plus a PS2 online account.

    I need to make another PSN account soon also, and I don't yet own a PS£

    /waits for god of War III, ICO 3

  • ronuds #43 3 years ago

    I don't know if Sony should be bragging over the # of Home users. Not a very large %, especially considering it's all free.

  • GamesConnoisseur #44 3 years ago

    I would shoot myself if I m considered one of the Home user as i only been there twice and never going back again, I hated the idea of having to wait for loadings to be completed, both actual and 'in game', with where you see ghosts dashing around waiting for their bodies to be filled up.

    Home for me is a wasted venture and would prefer Sony to focus on the actual contents, and I have no issues with Gold as long as I do regularly use it for online sessions. I do not play online every week but few times a month, and even so if that allows me to play Horde or other great online games.

    MGO was good but only for a damn short time and lost my interest which is a pity as Konami should be encouraged to focus more on their online offering.

    Still anybody here who believes wholly 20 million figure and that means Sony beaten XBL 17 millions need to get their heads examined! I m referring to Sony's as this is article based on Sony's PR.

    So to me Sony is still at their same old game of talking up what is not actually a reality, I would have hoped they would do better than this to be honest.

  • IneptPercy #45 3 years ago

    "vs PC, the fact that not every person has an extra health patch or see through walls etc etc etc makes it worth it"

    "Steam removes a lot of those issues, although not entirely sadly. Although it is not in anyway down to the online platform. The lack of such cheats on Live is down to the closed nature of the system and that games cannot be modified, scripts used etc."

    I agree completely, I don't think its the design of xbox live to stop cheating, it more a side affect of the design, I also find that people on the 360 are more likely to have a headset (not always a blessing I know) but try playing left 4 dead with 3 people you can't communicate with.

    I am not saying its right to charge for xbox live but it is the best overall service, I will add that my xbox live gold membership has expired and I have renewed it, not down to me thinking its not good value, just I don't have time for online gaming right now.

  • Marshall2008 #46 3 years ago

    4 Million users in home....

    so, 20% of PSN users are pedophiles



    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 22:54

  • Buran #47 3 years ago

    Burkey123 said:

    "From my experience on both online services, Xbox Live is the better service. In game voice chat is the main thing that PSN is missing. Also trying to start a game with friends on Xbox Live is miles easier than PSN. No cross game invites on PSN. Once you get into a game though, the amount of lag is pretty equal.
    Overall, Xbox Live > PSN"

    This remembers me my recent experience with Games For Windows Live and Steam in Dawn Of War II. Clearly, login in matches in DoW II via GFWL is 1.000 cubed times worse than in Dawn Of War/WI/DC/SS, even taking in consideration that the Gamespy system in DoW was not the best feature online. In short words, GFWL is a slow, painful, nerfed interface that performs poorly compared to the matchmaking sistem into games as Quake Wars, Battlefield 2, Crysis Wars and all the ones in Blizzard's Battlenet. Even Xfire direct jump into games does the work much better. So, I'm very impressed by the people who pays to use the Xbox Live and thinks that the service is great...

  • Les #48 3 years ago

    And another story that shows the relative idiocy of people that play online:

    [link url=http:// arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/microsoft-admits-to-defe nds-banning-lesbian-xbox-live-user.ars
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/...[/link]

    As long as the platformholders don't actively combat these bigots, the only people you will meet online are 13 year old white republicans. Not exactly a recipe for mass adoption... :(