Not all of this is directed specifically at you, just giving my two cents on the whole DVD debate and I like bantering with you so decided to quote you lol

I agree that the number of people who bought a PS2 solely or even primarily for its DVD player is probably pretty small but I do believe its ability to play DVDs right out of the box was a major factor in its overall appeal. An all-in-one multimedia device that allows you to play games, watch movies and listen to music was a novel idea and big deal in the early 00s.

As for price, I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way. We shouldn’t be looking at it in terms of “was PS2 cheaper than standalone DVD players” but rather does a gaming console with a built in DVD player offer a better value proposition than other gaming consoles or standalone DVD players?

If I was looking to buy a gaming console in 2002, what offers the better value? The $149 GameCube with no ability to play DVDs, the $199 Xbox that can play DVDs with an additional $29 add-on or the $199 PS2 that plays DVDs out of the box?

If I was looking to get a DVD player around the same time and also like to play games or have kids who play games, what offers the better value? A $149 DVD player (google search said average cost was around this price in 02) or for an extra $50 one that also plays the biggest games?

Now with all that said, PS2 would have dominated with or without DVD playback for a few reasons.

1. It was the successor to PS1 which sold over 100 million and was the highest selling home console ever at the time.

2. Sony didn’t make any major mistakes for the competitors to capitalize on and steal marketshare.

3. Year head start gave it a solid install base before competitors made it to market.

4. Exclusive/timed-exclusive home to major franchises like Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

Without DVD playback maybe things would have been a bit closer, something like

PlayStation 2-125 million (actual ~160 million)

Xbox-40 million (actual ~25 million)

GameCube-30 million (actual ~22 million)

Not all of this is directed specifically at you, just giving my two cents on the whole DVD debate and I like bantering with you so decided to quote you lol

I agree that the number of people who bought a PS2 solely or even primarily for its DVD player is probably pretty small but I do believe its ability to play DVDs right out of the box was a major factor in its overall appeal. An all-in-one multimedia device that allows you to play games, watch movies and listen to music was a novel idea and big deal in the early 00s.

As for price, I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way. We shouldn’t be looking at it in terms of “was PS2 cheaper than standalone DVD players” but rather does a gaming console with a built in DVD player offer a better value proposition than other gaming consoles or standalone DVD players?

If I was looking to buy a gaming console in 2002, what offers the better value? The $149 GameCube with no ability to play DVDs, the $199 Xbox that can play DVDs with an additional $29 add-on or the $199 PS2 that plays DVDs out of the box?

If I was looking to get a DVD player around the same time and also like to play games or have kids who play games, what offers the better value? A $149 DVD player (google search said average cost was around this price in 02) or for an extra $50 one that also plays the biggest games?

Now with all that said, PS2 would have dominated with or without DVD playback for a few reasons.

1. It was the successor to PS1 which sold over 100 million and was the highest selling home console ever at the time.

2. Sony didn’t make any major mistakes for the competitors to capitalize on and steal marketshare.

3. Year head start gave it a solid install base before competitors made it to market.

4. Exclusive/timed-exclusive home to major franchises like Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

Without DVD playback maybe things would have been a bit closer, something like

PlayStation 2-125 million (actual ~160 million)

Xbox-40 million (actual ~25 million)

GameCube-30 million (actual ~22 million)

You're pretty spot on for the most part, but Dreamcast was the first on the market. PS2 also had pretty good value proposition as a standalone DVD-player. The thing with the debate is, that 20 years ago nobody argued against that many bought PS2s primarily as DVD-players. We had games like Singstar and Buzz sellling to people who had the systems but didn't play the traditional games. 

It's a good question how much the systems had sold if it had been different, I'm sure PS2 had still been the clear winner, but I'd guess the sales had been much more even between the systems than they were. The strong start that continued beyond the launch window made sure that third parties had no interest to develop games for the other systems.

It's not just the additional cost of a remote in order to have a functionality, but also the psychological factor may be even bigger barrier than the cost itself.

While Dreamcast is technically classified as a 6th Gen console, it was in competition with PS1/N64 for most of its short life, making it a kind of weird mid-Gen console.

It released in 98/99 when PS1/N64 were still in their prime and was discontinued in March 2001, just months after PS2 launched outside Japan and before GC/XB even released.

For me, it’s hard to count Dreamcast as a 6th Gen competitor when it died before the Gen truly got underway making it a non-factor.

To add my two cents to the PS2 DVD playback discussion, the idea that literally tens of millions of people bought a PS2 just to watch DVDs is old argument, and it's one that never made sense to me. Sure, the PS2 having DVD playback right out of the box may have swayed a lot of gamers (the Xbox required an additional accessory for DVD playback, while the Dreamcast and GameCube had no DVD playback at all), which increased its value proposition for those in the market for a Gen 6 console, but I doubt many non-gamers would have bothered. By late 2000, standalone DVD players could be purchased for far less than the $300 asking price for a PS2.

While I'm not sure about the pricing situation in other countries, when the PS2 debuted in the U.S. in Oct. 2000, it cost $300. By that point, DVD players had been around for a bit over three years (I already owned one before the PS2 released). They had already become readily affordable, and you could already buy one for half the price of the PS2. By time the PS2's price was cut to $200 (May 2002), you could buy a DVD player for well under $100. At no point during the PS2's life was it the cheapest option for watching DVDs. Further complicating things was that even though it was the only console that could play DVDs straight out of the box, it did not come with a remote control, which would further add another $20 to the cost.

The idea that the PS2 was purchased in large quantities non-gamers just to be a DVD player just never made sense to me. It was neither the cheapest nor most convenient option for watching DVDs. Regular DVD players did the job just as good if not better and could be purchased for far less money. Unless there's actual market research showing that non-gamers bought the PS2 en masse just for the DVD playback, then I don't buy that claim. The PS2 was following the momentum of the PS1, its sales curve is normal for a game console, and its software tie ratio is about what you'd expect from a PlayStation console.

But even if it was some very large percentage that bought a PS2 just to watch DVDs, why even put these asterisks next the sales of all these systems in the first place? So what if there were caveats? Lots of systems have caveats. Many households bought multiple units of handhelds so each of their kids (or kids & gaming adults) could have one of their own. The 360 had the RROD issue in its first several years. The Wii and DS were bought by a fair amount of non-gamers. The PS3 actually was the most affordable Blu-ray player by far back in 2006. The Switch got a boost from COVID (plus there's the handheld double-dipping factor to consider). So even if it is true that the PS2's sales were inflated because of DVD, so what? Either one system sells more than another or it doesn't. It should be a matter of academic curiosity, not part of a partisan pissing contest. Which is what portions of this thread have turned into. Just another front in the platform war, because apparently some grown people can't act like grown people over a toy. And I am going to have to officially insist that people do act like grown-ups in here, because I am willing to accept the OP's request to lock the thread if it gets too far out of hand.

I don't get it. This is what I've been saying. Most of Nintendo's money comes from the sale of the hardware and software, whereas Sony's money comes from MTX. This is literally what the data you provided says. I said this already.

According to your charts, 47% of their gaming revenue comes from the sales of their hardware and software(HW, physical and digital game sales). 54% is MTX and services, compared to Nintendo at 11%. The biggest chunk of that revenue for Sony is, you guessed it, MTX. 

But Profit is where the bread is buttered. You can generate all the revenue you want. If you don't turn a profit, you go out of business.

Nintendo profits in FY2021(April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021): 480B yen

Playstation profits for FY2024((April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025: 414B yen

FY2021 wasn't Nintendo's best year. FY2024(ending March31, 2024) was where they made 490B yen in profit. This was 3 years after the pandemic and due to TOTK selling at $70 throughout that year(10 million sold in 3 days) as well as the Super Mario movie, Pikmin 4, and Super Mario Wonder(which went head-to-head with Spiderman 2 and Sonic Superstars releasing on the same day).

Bruh...

You claimed that Playstation beats Nintendo's software revenue due to MTX. I've shown you that their traditional software alone (no MTX and Services) can hang with "The entire Switch software revenue including MTX and Services" and you "don't get it"? Are you kidding me?

MTX boosts Playstation's software revenue from "comfortably beating" Nintendo to "dominating" them. It just ain't smart to bring up "full price!!!" in this. Playstation consumers are much bigger spenders and that's a fact. Playstation dominates software/spending.

Profitability is another topic. Nintendo's operating profits record is FY 2020 (Year ending March 2021) at 640 billion yen. The Switch is definitely the most successful console of all time imo because I view profitability the main measurement of success. But the NES and PS1 are the most successful in terms of significance, because they established the brands (multiple brands in Nintendo's case).

And the data never supported millions buying it as a DVD player.  The ps2 sold the most software, had a software attach ratio inline with the norm and the top selling games were dominated by the ps2.  Even the data has it being 6% in 2000, which would have decreased as time went on to sub 1%.  Not too mention why did third party support the ps2 over the xbox/GC if so many owners where non gamers?  The answer is because it is a BS argument.

Only casuals bought the ps2 for dvd is as accurate as only kiddies buy Nintendo.  Both are myths created by people who were/are upset their favorite plastic box didnt "win."