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

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

Tagged games:

 

Which is Sony's Most "Successful" Console?

PS2 41 55.41%
 
PS4 33 44.59%
 
Total:74
The_Liquid_Laser on 05 June 2021
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.



curl-6 bet me that PS5 + X|S sales would reach 56m before year end 2023 and he was right.
My Bet With curl-6

My Threads:
Master Thread, Game of the Year/Decade
Switch Will Be #1 All Time
Zelda Will Outsell Mario (Achieved)
How Much Will MH Rise sell?
My Bet With Metallox

Around the Network
Sogreblute on 05 June 2021

I think it would be a fairer comparison if we removed revenue/profit from PS+ and PSNow subscribers since the PS2 didn't have those.



VAMatt on 05 June 2021
Sogreblute said:

I think it would be a fairer comparison if we removed revenue/profit from PS+ and PSNow subscribers since the PS2 didn't have those.

You make a good point, considering that the OP refers specifically to *console* success.  

On the other hand, if the point of the console is to drive sales of add ons (which is the point of every console) then one could argue that removing those things from the equation doesn't make sense.  

Thinking it through right here......  I'm gonna say that the subscription services should be counted.  But, we do need to be talking in inflation adjusted numbers.  



Alby_da_Wolf on 06 June 2021

Lower HW numbers, but in a shorter period, and sold at relatively high price also in late years. SW sales for PS4 are not tracked completely enough, as digital grew a lot, but we know digital means lower costs and higher profit margins, and on top of this, Sony too followed MS and made paid online services necessary for most online multiplayer gaming. PS4 is already the second best selling Sony console ever, it should be, or it will become soon the most successful one financially and it will stay so until another one becomes Sony most profitable, if it will ever happen.



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!   


PotentHerbs on 06 June 2021

I think the PS4 is Sony's most successful console:

a) IIRC the amount of profit the PS4 made eclipses the profit of the PS1 & PS2 combined and it covered the losses from the PS3 era
b) SIE IP has seen major growth in part due to the PS4's dominance
c) Over 1.5+ Billion of software units sold
d) Established great reoccurring revenue in subscriptions like PS+/PS Now

Although the PS2 was hit by a lot of piracy which certainly hurt its software sales, and ultimately, the extent of profit it could have made.



Around the Network
Azzanation on 06 June 2021

Unfortunately based on this site, the only success is units sold. Nothing else matters to some people.

But the reality is the PS4 is Sonys most successful console because it is Sonys most profitable. PSN subscriptions would be the primary reason aswell as the PS4 not being too expensive to build compared to previous gens. Plus the lack of piracy on PS4 vs PS2 would mean they took less of a loss overall.

Software sales seem to be on par however the PS2 had a 13 year shelf life compared to the PS4s 8 years.

Software sales > Hardware sales. Easily PS4. Achieved more in a sborter lifespan.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 06 June 2021

Azzanation on 06 June 2021
The_Liquid_Laser said:

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.

A customer is nothing to a business if they dont have a wallet. PS4 maximizes profits from its customers, PS2 couldn't as it had to deal with piracy at the time and had no service model to continue to generate cash. Hence hardware sales (especially sold at a loss) means little if the customer is spending less. Also expanding upon the gaming market means little to shareholders if they are not generating profits. Each industry generates profits differently however the end goal is all the same. At a supermarket, companies lose money on Milk but rely on you buying other products like fruit which is sold at a profit. Sounds familiar to how hardware and software work doesn't it. Hardware is what gets the customers into the store, the software is the items the customers buy within the store to generate the profits. Ever wonder why some stores try to give you baskets at the door? So you impulse buy and carry more items, because that's where the money is.

I was removed from a bar once because i wasn't buying any drinks and i was taking up space, they knew i wasn't spending so they asked me to leave so they can get others into the bar who were willing to spend. See how important i was as a customer when i wasn't spending money.

Below is a good example of a made up scenario,

Example 1: Company (A) makes a games console, RnD was $3b to make. They sold 200m consoles at $100 each. They now hold the record of consoles sold and have the most customers with no Subscription model. Would you consider that a success?

Example 2: Company (B) makes a games console, RnD was $3b to make. They sold 100m consoles at $400 each, they also have 50m subscribers paying $100 per year over 5 years.

Both consoles were on the market for 5 years and sold the same amount of software. Who is more successful?

Last edited by Azzanation - on 06 June 2021

Otter on 07 June 2021

One thing to note is that PS4 stands out as the generation where Sony established its own IP/studio dominance. Before this it was always dependant on 3rd parties and every icon people associate with the PS1/PS2 era were from third parties (Tekken, MSG, GTA, Final Fantasy etc). Even GOW and Ratchet which were introduced during the PS2's life, didn't truly find their commercial feet until recently

Last edited by Otter - on 08 June 2021

V-r0cK on 07 June 2021

PS4.

Because Sony proved they can dominate all over again and that the PS2 wasn't a fluke lol



NextGen_Gamer on 07 June 2021

PS2, and I would say it's not even close. I am basing that on third-party exclusive games. Back in the early 2000's, we had the GameCube from Nintendo, PS2 from Sony and Xbox from Microsoft. All three were actually pretty comparable in terms of CPU and GPU and RAM. You could make the argument that the GameCube was a bit harder for certain games due to the disc storage size; those cute little GameCube discs didn't hold nearly as much data as the DVD-ROM's of PS2 and Xbox, and that does legitimately make certain games impossible to release on it (like Grand Theft Auto for example; you can't expect someone to switch discs every time they cross a certain road or something).

But despite both PS2 and Xbox being nearly as similar as the PS4 and Xbox One, the gulf between them in sales was SO MUCH that PS2 got the vast majority of games. Imagine a world where Call of Duty or Far Cry or Grand Theft Auto was exclusive to PS4 just because it wasn't even worth the development costs of an Xbox One release. That was the PS2 dominance back in the day.