Forums - Sales Discussion - Why Play Station is always held at such high expectations, unlike competition ?

JapaneseGamesLover said:
NightlyPoe said:

In fairness, if a Sony console ever did sell 13.5 million, they might very well drop the brand.

Heck, it seems they did drop out of the handheld market.

Nintendos last handheld was released almost a decade ago. Nintendo left the traditional market they had it is. :)

I know you're not joking, but I'm gonna pretend you are.



Around the Network

I'm pretty sure that if Playstation 5 sold only 14M Sony would simply leave the market and do something else. In any case, most rational adults know number sold doesn't particularly reflect quality - otherwise Justin Bieber is much better than Mozart.

I don't really see anyone saying that Playstation is a flop, though. Maybe that's a "you" thing?



OneTime said:
I'm pretty sure that if Playstation 5 sold only 14M Sony would simply leave the market and do something else. In any case, most rational adults know number sold doesn't particularly reflect quality - otherwise Justin Bieber is much better than Mozart.

Yeah.

As things stand, Justin Bieber is only a little better than Mozart.



mZuzek said:
OneTime said:
I'm pretty sure that if Playstation 5 sold only 14M Sony would simply leave the market and do something else. In any case, most rational adults know number sold doesn't particularly reflect quality - otherwise Justin Bieber is much better than Mozart.

Yeah.

As things stand, Justin Bieber is only a little better than Mozart.

Ironically Mozart would probably be pretty irritated that his music has become "highbrow".  He thought he was badass, edgy and rock-and-roll, writing music about aristocrats abusing their power to bone pretty young servants, and so forth.  A bit like how Shakespeare plays are actually fairly full of knob jokes...

Maybe in 400 years, we'll be able to study the hidden meanings and nuances of "Call of Duty" as a University degree...



I no longer have the article sadly as it was about a decade ago. So I cannot confirm it to be true. I just remember it mentioning for a fleeting moment in 2007, Sony considered the idea of selling off the division due to the PS3's struggles and financial strain.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

PlayStation is the most consistently succesful console maker... yes. They create products that sell.

But other than that I have no idea what the premise of this thread is. Double Standards?

NES being considered more succesful than PS3 while selling less isn't a double standard. You can't compare the video game industry in the 80's with that it was decades later.



Seriously. What do you think expectations are? They are high for Sony because Sony can meet them.
Just like expectations for Usain Bolt's speed is higher than mine, because he can meet them.
The "competition" isn't realy competition outside of MS stans' bubble: Sony has structural dominance.
That doesn't mean MS doesn't have viable business whose product can't be preferred for some people.
So what drives wack takes is people needing to externally affirm their status conflated with console/etc.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 08 July 2020

Barkley said:

PlayStation is the most consistently succesful console maker... yes. They create products that sell.

But other than that I have no idea what the premise of this thread is. Double Standards?

NES being considered more succesful than PS3 while selling less isn't a double standard. You can't compare the video game industry in the 80's with that it was decades later.

I agree with your post as a whole, but Playstation isn't even the most consistently successful console maker.  They come in first place 50% of the time, while people treat them like they come in first 100% of the time.  It's like there is this reality distortion field caused by cherry picking and misinformation.  "Handheld systems don't count and the PS3 was actually a success."

Look at this.  I'll put a * next to the first place systems.

Playstation
PS1*, PS2*, PS3, PS4*, PSP, PS Vita

That is 3/6 = 50%.  Playstation has a 50% win percentage.  Now look at Nintendo systems:

Nintendo
NES*, SNES*, N64, Gamecube, Wii*, Wii U, Gameboy*, Virtual Boy, GBA*, DS*, 3DS*

That is 7/11 = 64%.  Nintendo has a higher win percentage.  This is with me not counting Switch or GB Color, but I am counting Virtual Boy.  (VB technically had no competitors, but I'd still count it as a loss.)  When you actually count every system Nintendo has the highest win percentage.  It is also the "most consistently successful console maker", because it's handhelds have never been defeated.

If there is a reason why "Playstation is held to high expectations", it's because people think it is performing better than it actually is.  It only wins 50% of the time.  It is not the most consistently successful either.  Anyone care to look at financial statements?  Get those out and you'll find Nintendo performs far better there too.  Nintendo is the most consistently successful console maker, and yet people like to talk about it going third party.  Is it really Playstation that people are being unfair to?

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 08 July 2020

The_Liquid_Laser said:
Barkley said:

PlayStation is the most consistently succesful console maker... yes. They create products that sell.

But other than that I have no idea what the premise of this thread is. Double Standards?

NES being considered more succesful than PS3 while selling less isn't a double standard. You can't compare the video game industry in the 80's with that it was decades later.

I agree with your post as a whole, but Playstation isn't even the most successful console maker.  They come in first place 50% of the time.

The Average PlayStation console has sold 92.8m.

The Average Nintendo console has sold 71.16m. (Not including Switch as that would currently bring average down)  (Also not including Virtual Boy cause I'm kind)

The Average Xbox console has sold 52.85m.

I disagree that the metric of what is a succesful console manufacturer should be who came first place.

By your criteria a console manufacturer who sold 10m every gen, except one where they came 1st would be better than a console manufacturer who sold 100m every gen but came 2nd each time. Sales are more important than "who came first the most".

PlayStation have released 6 consoles and all but one of those is in the top 10 selling systems of all time. They occupy three of the top 5 spots, and the 3 best selling home consoles of all time are PlayStation too. They have the most consisent track record for creating a console that sells.

Edit: Though reading more of your post I need to clarify. I'm not saying PlayStation is a more succesfull gaming company than Nintendo. I'm saying their console hardware is more consistently succesful.

Last edited by Barkley - on 08 July 2020

The_Liquid_Laser said:
Barkley said:

PlayStation is the most consistently succesful console maker... yes. They create products that sell.

But other than that I have no idea what the premise of this thread is. Double Standards?

NES being considered more succesful than PS3 while selling less isn't a double standard. You can't compare the video game industry in the 80's with that it was decades later.

I agree with your post as a whole, but Playstation isn't even the most consistently successful console maker.  They come in first place 50% of the time, while people treat them like they come in first 100% of the time.  It's like there is this reality distortion field caused by cherry picking and misinformation.  "Handheld systems don't count and the PS3 was actually a success."

Look at this.  I'll put a * next to the first place systems.

Playstation
PS1*, PS2*, PS3, PS4*, PSP, PS Vita

That is 3/6 = 50%.  Playstation has a 50% win percentage.  Now look at Nintendo systems:

Nintendo
NES*, SNES*, N64, Gamecube, Wii*, Wii U, Gameboy*, Virtual Boy, GBA*, DS*, 3DS*

That is 7/11 = 64%.  Nintendo has a higher win percentage.  This is with me not counting Switch or GB Color, but I am counting Virtual Boy.  (VB technically had no competitors, but I'd still count it as a loss.)  When you actually count every system Nintendo has the highest win percentage.  It is also the "most consistently successful console maker", because it's handhelds have never been defeated.

If there is a reason why "Playstation is held to high expectations", it's because people think it is performing better than it actually is.  It only wins 50% of the time.  It is not the most consistently successful either.  Anyone care to look at financial statements?  Get those out and you'll find Nintendo performs far better there too.  Nintendo is the most consistently successful console maker, and yet people like to talk about it going third party.  Is it really Playstation that people are being unfair to?

How many Nintendo systems have sold more than 80m units ?

All Sony systems did that, except Vita.

All Nintendo  consoles failed to do so, except Wii and DS.

Convientiently presenting winning in made up metrics and not real numbers must be your forte. 

Win in your book is a system selling 49m, but not 88m.