No one can discuss seriously about sales numbers or anything gaming related if you simply dont know these numbers. 

numbers don't lie!!

The point you are missing is consoles dont just automatically win you subs. They help but they dont just generate the numbers, majority wont just Sub just because. Xbox could sell 100m consoles and still only have a third of there customers subscibe. 35m are paid PSN users in an environment of over 80m consoles sold. Theres almost 2 thirds of PS customers not paying for PS+.

My point is HW helps but even if Xbox went on to sell 50m consoles, it seems MS care about the real profits and thats the Subs. 50+ million Xboxes sold with a high attachment to paid members is better than a ton of consoles sold (little profit) and small amount of subscibers. All console HW numbers do is help measure whos dick is bigger, its been like that ever since the beginning of sales charts. 

Heck look at it like this, PS3 and 360 sold similar amount of HW numbers in there lifetime, yet PS3 lost more money than any other console in the industry because HW isnt where the profits are. Wii's were cheap to produce,  360s had Paid subscibers and PS3 only had HW and SW.. it was not enough to turn Sony's fortunes around that gen. They lost billions. That is just a simple example of HW numbers not meaning everything. Yes it helps but its not everything.

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/sony-lost-5-billion-on-ps3-losing-more-money-than--29131319/

Its time we start moving forward and look at the numbers that really matter rather than live in the past thinking HW numbers mean everything. 

You really are king of exaggeration.

2/3 is 66% while 45/80 (and those aren't the exact numbers) is 56% so it's closer to 1/2 than 2/3 but let's use something more exaggerated. Nothing really grants anything. But if you have a strong correlation between HW sold and PSN+ (besides the PSN) that have shown for 4 years that there is almost 50% attach ratio (this has been almost constant) then yes selling more HW granted more subs.

Sure majority won't sub just cause. I even provided you that it took Sony putting MP behind paywall (very bad move for customers, but was wonderful for their revenue) to increase from less than 5% attach ratio to almost 50%.

MS doesn't disclose the paid XBL numbers and also doesn't disclose the P&L of Xbox, so you are saying they care more about it but doesn't show the results, so what would we discuss in this subject?

You do know that from what can be gathered on the internet Xbox never profited since the first release right? And that we can't infer the numbers because the department always had other stuff put together that would distort the numbers. But sure most would know PS3 was a major money loss for Sony. But since you were so kind to provide Sony loses on PS3, please provide MS profit on Xbox alone for any of the 3 gens.

Where do you source your numbers from? 

As of March 2018 it claims 35.2m PS+ members.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/532431/playstation-plus-subscribers-global/

Can you link your source so i can atleast base your debate on?

I also gave you a good example of why HW sales never tell the true story. Again many would claim the PS3 a success because all they go by is HW sales. But the real picture is that PS3 lost Sony 5Billion dollars. 

And to anwser your question on Xbox profiting. Has MS ever disclosed the profits they made from Live Gold Members in the past? Your answer awaits.

Do you need a source to prove 45/80 (which is the complement of 35/80)? 45/80 would be the number of people that doesn't have PSN+ (but guess what at least 80M PSN accounts exist, and Sony MAU is higher than MS). So it is like this 45/80 or 56% doesn't have PS+ which is closer to 50% (1/2) than to 66% (2/3) but you choose 2/3 for what reason?

But to help you out https://segmentnext.com/2018/05/22/sony-ir-psn-ps-plus/ so PS4 MAU is 80M or about the number of PS4 sold. Which is more than double the MAU of MS, also more than double subs of XBL. With PS+ (paid) about equal to total XBL (including silver).

Many perhaps would (many more would say the opposite). On HW and SW it was a success, in bringing money it was a failure, but at least kept Sony in the fight for PS4.

MS have never disclosed their profit for Xbox at all (but you are claiming it is making money, so you should provide source instead of asking). We have had during X360 disclosure of HW sold and also the number of gold members. Both stopped being shown this gen when they were to much behind so now they give total number of Live accounts (that  for some crazy reason you compare PSN+ to Total Live accounts instead of Gold).

So please give us the showing that Xbox by itself ever profited.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-07-huge-xbox-losses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

https://www.destructoid.com/analyst-microsoft-losing-2-billion-on-xbox-annually-265273.phtml (so X360 gen took 7 years... that would make 14 Billion in loses, almost 3 times as much as the one reported for Sony)

Then where are you getting they are massively profitable and have tons more paid subs if they have never even reported on that? I really never get from what you base your arguments.

From how you posted it, it sounded like you were saying there were 45m PS+ members. And you also forgot i said almost 2 thirds, i never said it was 2 thirds.

Having accounts is easy since every XB and PS4 require an account to use the system. Its all about turning those accounts into paid members. Well for MS anyway hence the heavy focus on there inline features and games.

PS3 was the worst profitable console in History not the 360. Do the maths, $60 x 20m Gold accounts x 7 years. Now there just low rough figures. The 360 at some point had over 40m Gold accounts. Now add those profits from Live into your Destructiod link which is just an assumption not actual fact and remember the 360 also sold more software than the PS3 aswell. Strange how hardware means everything to you yet the console that technically sold the least last gen actually sold more SW and made more money. Point proven.

Also you dont need them to disclose there making money on a department to actually think there not. MS never claimes how much money they make from there Subs. Sneaky little MS. Where does all that Sub money go? 

Isnt it funny that one of the greatest and wealthiest video game companies around in Blizzard also dont tell us how much they make from there subscriptions? They leave it all up to us to estimate. 

Unmm well.. there clearly not losing money when it comes to Subs. How long has Live been around? Where does all that money they make from Subs go? Do the maths and times it how much a membership costs per year. Exact same as what i said to Don.

No offense, but do you really believe this? I shouldn't even be asking that, because literally right there where I just quoted you, you're speaking about it factually.

This was debunked in numerous places, including GAF, and this was back in 2013 when GAF was a complete Playstation hive mind. Earlier you made a big stink about some cuckoo Xbots believing crazy stuff like Xbone and PS4 actually being very close in sales. Well, believing Microsoft was losing 2 BILLION per year on Xbox is just as insane. Remember, this is the same analyst who just months earlier claimed Xbox as a business was doing very well, and had also multiple times championed the idea that MS should sell off the division. He predicted it multiple times, was wrong, and also predicted multiple Ballmer replacements, wrong on all of them. So because he predicts some percentage of a loss in the E&D division is attributed to Xbox, doesn't make it factual.

Especially when all logic and evidence points to that idea being complete nonsense. Kind of like.. idk, believing PS4 and Xbone are neck and neck in WW sales.