By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - The PS4 shipped 110.4m by March 31st. Lifetime sales expectations?

 

The PS4 shipped 110.4m by March 31st. Lifetime sales expectations?

Less than 120 million 143 12.11%
 
120.0 - 122.4 million 202 17.10%
 
122.5 - 124.9 million 138 11.69%
 
125.0 - 127.4 million 201 17.02%
 
127.5 - 129.9 million 109 9.23%
 
130.0 - 132.4 million 180 15.24%
 
132.5 - 134.9 million 27 2.29%
 
135.0 - 137.4 million 26 2.20%
 
137.5 - 140.0 million 17 1.44%
 
More than 140 million 138 11.69%
 
Total:1,181

A few months ago I would have expected it to fall just short of 130 mil, but since lockdowns around the world has given all consoles a bit of an unforseen boost, I think it has a good shot at 130 mil now. Anything more than that I doubt though.



Try out my free game on Steam

2024 OpenCritic Prediction Leagues:

Nintendo | PlayStation | Multiplat

Around the Network

I think the PS4 will sell for quite some time after the launch of the PS5 because of Cross-Gen titles. It could very well become the cheap option to play most games, Sony could drop the price to 199 or even 99. In such a case I expect the PS4 to overtake the PS2 in the long run.

I could be horribly wrong of course. =P



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

125-130m. If it gets notably more than that, then it probably means the PS5 launch went wrong.



125-127m seems about right with 10m max for this FY then a creep up to the mid/late 120's by the end of it's lifetime.



My biggest question has to do with price cuts.  What is going to be the final price when PS4 discontinues?  If you had asked me 2 years ago, then I would have been confident that Sony would have cut the price by now.  But there hasn't been a price cut since it hit $300 in 2016.  PS3 final price was $269, which IMO was too high for a final price, but that is what they did.

I think 125m if there is no price cut, and 145m if they go down to $200 at some point.  I'm going to try to read their mind and say the final price will get to $250-$270 price range.  So I voted 132.5m-135m.

Bonus Answer:  I've never needed to use Sony's online service even when it was free.  I don't pay for it, but I do pay for Nintendo's.  If there are enough people who think Sony's service is good enough to pay for then it should be a paid service.  Basically let the free market decide if it is a valuable service or not.  I don't see gamers as a political group any more than any other group of consumers.

In the case of the XB1, Microsoft was trying to take gaming in a direction that gamers didn't want it to go and that is why those "features" had to change.  I remember the Microsoft execs saying, "You can't stop the future from happening", but in this case gamers did actually stop that particular future.



Around the Network

125M-130M.

As for the bonus question, you could ask Nintendo fans the same thing about their online and Nintendo's reluctance to lower game prices so that poorer gamers can enjoy them, too. I guess everyone makes excuses for their preferred brand. Though, at least Sony gave away games, didn't lock apps/F2P games behind the paywall, and offered deep discounts. Before, MS's model was to take as much money from gamers without giving much in return.



Somewhere in the 125-130m range, since it'll continue selling after PS5 launches, much like the PS3 with the PS4 release.



I think it will cross 120M by the end of this FY and 125-130 end of life
BONUS: Yes gamers should have taken a stand since Gold was created and certainly again when Sony put the multiplayer behind PS+ and also when Nintendo followed with an even poorer option.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

125M if Sony planned a relatively quick transition to next gen, 130M, even 135M, if Sony planned a slower one, with PS4 staying longer on the market as entry level console. Anything more is less likely, it would require not only a big price cut, but also a few new cross gen games and a decent schedule of older games budget versions, and probably a super slim restyling too, and all this done in time, as if the sales curve flattens at a level too low, lifting it again to viable numbers would require, if even possible, an excessive investment compared to possible profits.

So, to cut it short:
125M with little effort and no big mistakes
130M with some more efforts and no mistakes
135M with some more efforts and everything going the best way
More than 135M quite unlikely, requiring far more efforts, perfect timing and a lot of luck. Most probably not worth the investment, that money could be better spent to make a cheaper PS5 version possible earlier.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


RolStoppable said:

Last week Sony reported that the PS4 had reached 110.4m in life to date shipments by March 31, 2020. This translates to 13.6m for the past twelve months (April 2019 to March 2020), down from 17.8m in the year before. Sony did not provide a PS4 hardware forecast for the current fiscal year ending March 2021, but it's supposed to be announced in August when Sony next reports on their financials.

A continuation of the PS4's decline is expected because the PS5 is still on track for its scheduled launch during the holiday season 2020, but how far can the PS4 go?

...

Bonus question: Hindsight is 20/20. When Microsoft announced their vision for the Xbox One roughly seven years ago, a huge gamer movement formed to push back against Microsoft's policies, such as always online and big restrictions on used game sales. Said movement ultimately succeeded because Microsoft abolished some of their policies before they launched their Xbox One console, demonstrating that gamers do have the power to dictate the direction. However, concurrently the same movement remained silent when Sony announced that they would stop providing the options for free online multiplayer or a paid premium online service, putting everything behind a PS+ subscription. Do you think the collective gaming community should have taken a stand, are you indifferent because you don't play online games anyway, or are you fine with gamers sending the message that it's okay to screw them over as long as it is Sony who is performing the deed?

I don't think that's true.

You can still use a lot of internet based services that are subscriptions elsewhere. without PS+ you can still use party chat, share screenshots, live stream to twitch and other services. Use all of the streaming apps like netflix, etc. (Although I think that last one MS changed their minds so you can use it without any XB live if someone can correct me on that?)

And you can still play online on F2P games as well without PS+.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'