Is the PS4 Sony's Most Successful Console to Date?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

VAMatt said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Your view on the purpose of business is not uncommon, but it is most definitely incorrect.  

If your view were true, then most industries would not exist.  There are some industries, like finance or real estate, that consistently give a high return for a relatively low amount of risk.  Some industries are simply more profitable.  If the point were to make profits, then every business in a low profit sector, like food service, should close down and start a company in the finance industry instead.  In practice, this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule.  Most businesses instead try to succeed in their chosen industry, regardless of whether it is one of the more profitable industries or not.

The Entertainment Industry (which includes the Game Industry) just happens to be one the worst industries to be in for any business that cares only about profits.  The risk for any business in the Entertainment Industry is incredibly high.  Even the companies that seem to be at the top of the Game Industry, like Sony and Nintendo, do not get financial results that are remotely consistent.  Sony's losses during the PS3 era were greater than their profits during the PS2 era, and Nintendo's fortunes can obviously change greatly from one console to the next. 

And these are the best companies.  All of the other companies have a harder time succeeding than either Sony or Nintendo, and there are many established companies that have gone out of business in the Game Industry.  If these companies were really in it solely for the profits, then they should have left the Game Industry long ago and started a business in a more profitable industry.  The truth is that Sony and Nintendo and every other company in the Game Industry are there by choice.  They are choosing to serve customers by making games.  It isn't about profits alone.

Steve Jobs didn't become a successful entrepreneur by being greedier than everyone else.  He was successful, because he had a vision of every person in the world using a computer.  He had a vision of how his business would serve people.  He chose to serve people by selling them home computers, laptops, smart phones, etc....  He definitely didn't think there was anything wrong with making profits.  (I don't either.)  However, profits are not the end, not the real purpose of a business.  The profits are the means to an end.  The end is to create new customers and to keep them by serving them with the business's goods and services.

I think you're reading something into my comments that I didn't say. Who said anything about being greedy? I also didn't talk about profit adter my first comment, because that term may be confusing.  I said maximizing total return to owners.  Generally, chasing a quick buck is not the right way to do that, though it may be the best way to show profit in the short term.

My view is most definitely correct. There's not even any real debate about it, apparently outside of this website.  I most definitely know about business. I own 100% of a business now, owned another in the past.  Grew up in a family that owned and operated a business. I invest in other businesses, such that I own a piece of many. I studied business and have a business degree. It is what I do, and what I have always done.  If you disagree, you are disagreeing with essentially all business people.  There just is no question that businesses exist to maximize return to owners.  I don't thank you disagree though. I think you're just not understanding the subject matter very well.

In fact, in most countries, management of a public company has a legal responsibility to do just that. So if they tried to do something else, they would be liable, in some cases criminally liable, for not meeting their most basic fiduciary duty.  Now, most companies are not public. But, they still have to attract investment, and they still have to generate a return to continue existing.  They do those things only by trying to maximize return to investors/owners.  

Well, we may be talking past each other.  Legal obligations are different from a business's purpose.  The purpose of a business is to make and retain customers. 

However, you admit that chasing a quick buck is not really the right path.  That was essentially my issue with the PS4 in my first post.  PS2 expanded the gaming market as much as possible, and the PS4 did not.  They kept the price of their console high when they could have easily lowered it.  Not only does this exclude people from the gaming market, but it is not in Sony's best interest to keep prices high when that excludes significant customers.  The reason is that a competitor can easily come along with a cheaper price and take these customers for themselves.  These neglected customers end up empowering competitors.  By not serving them with the PS4, Sony may be shooting themselves in the foot for a quick buck.  On the other hand, if they just focused on serving their customers, and they lowered their system price, then they could avoid empowering competitors.  There are plenty of examples in other industries, where this very thing has happened.