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

two things:
- i hope sony gives concrete numbers for ps+ some day. subscription numbers.
- i hope the value doesn't go down because much more people will be forced to get it.

a third thing:
i'd much prefer following:
- online services: 3$/month
- ps plus instant game collection: 4$/month
- both: 6$/month

or something like that...

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.

 Wasn't online multiplayer through XBL free though on the original Xbox? Even so, XBL Gold on 360 was still a success, so why can't Sony do the same? Especially when they show peole all the benefits of having PS + beyond just being able to play multiplayer online.

Also, Sony's model is still a lot more than free than M$'s seeing as 1) You still have access to all other PSN features, apps, and F2P titles, and 2) it's still cheaper. Mabye some won't come around at first, but eventually the model will settle in.

Finally we have some real numbers to use.
So if we assume these numbers are correct then there are nearly 21 million Xbox Live Gold members which is ok.

I really thought PS Plus would be much more popular than that.
Sony has been silly to not be charging for online for all these years. They could have made billions like MS and might have actually made the PS3 recover its losses.

I never understand why people respond to this argument with personal anecdotes. 

You're aware of the atrocities at Foxconn, who supply apple products? Has it damaged sales in any way?

You may be someone who does stand on principle. This is not the norm. You're in the extreme minority. 

It will be a snap. With PS360 there was an option to buy a console that didn't charge.

The option isn't there anymore. Or, it's at least less prevalent. (Wii U)

I'm not sure how you missed my point, but I'll repeat it. When you went to purchase a 360, did you or did you not realize that multiplayer gaming would be charged? It's not some big secret and it didn't seem to stop many from making the purchase. Same scenario here with PS4, but to a lesser extent because their competition is doing the same thing.

I thought the same. I expected there to be at least 8 million subscribers. And they probably aren't profiting from it that much since they are giving free games. 

Even Xbox origional had a paywall introduced with Xbox Live. It was actually going to fail, until Halo 2 literally saved it.

You don't know if it will be a snap. To me anyway, it doesn't matter if there isn't a choice anymore since both do it, for a PS gamer who exclusively plays on PS consoles, it is a change and there will be a transition phase. But I guess we will wait and see.

When I went to purchase a 360, I knew and expected it because the predesessor did it. PS3 as it stands was free and still is, as PS Plus is optional.

So it isn't quite the same scenario with PS4, as PS3 is optional, and yet PS4 is mandatory, where as Xbox was always mandatory. That was my point.

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.