Well, to be fair it's avoidance in combination with devalue.
PS3 Success = ? Userbase
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
Well, to be fair it's avoidance in combination with devalue.
One.
One PS3. Mine. How many Sony sells to people who aren't me is irrevlevent to whether or not it is successful "in my eyes".
I don't understand why I'm catching flak for this. Why should I need any particular number to be sold to consider it succsessful?
If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.
/Dad
Seriously if ps3 caused Sony to go belly up this year with roughly 6million total units I'm gonna guess you'd call that a failure. Why? Games selection would be ... hmm ... limited.
But if you're not interested in the thread and it makes no sense to you, why post in it?
The purpose is obvious: to guage expectation of b3ders.
I'm saying games and quality of games is not what I'm looking for in this thread. Games follow userbase. That is a given.
In other words I'm not looking for "It has RFOM which was my favorite game of all time, therefore it is a success."
Did you not notice taht the two quotes up there are entirely contradictory?
The poll asks me to select a number of units sold which would make the PS3 a success in my eyes. Then I was asked to disregard everything else.
I jump in the thread to just say "how could I possibly do that? This is dumb".
Then I get hounded for not answering a questions that is not at all dissimilar to "what color is sour?" or "what is the square root of Bosnia?".
And then I'm told to take into account all these aweful consequences that an arbitrarily declared low userbase has a nebulous connection to. The very same things, btw I was specifically told to disregard.
This is HORSE SHIT!!!!
The poll asks me to select a number of units sold which would make the PS3 a success in my eyes. Then I was asked to disregard everything else.
I jump in the thread to just say "how could I possibly do that? This is dumb".
Then I get hounded for not answering a questions that is not at all dissimilar to "what color is sour?" or "what is the square root of Bosnia?".
And then I'm told to take into account all these aweful consequences that an arbitrarily declared low userbase has a nebulous connection to. The very same things, btw I was specifically told to disregard.
This is HORSE SHIT!!!!
What's one dimensional about thinking in numbers? In my other post I even went away from percentages and stuck with basic volumes. You can comment on that if you like.
Read my other to the relevance of BR success and the different scenarios it opens up.
PS2 has already established itself as a financial success. There is no guarantee of what you're proposing. Did people wait for a proper Nintendo console or did they jump to the Playstation? The consumer market is rather volatile thus periods of dominance only last for so long in the face of competition.
The gaming division of Sony is an important part of their business and more importantly, a profitable one. One possible setback isn't enough for the company to give up and fold up that division over. If Nintendo and MS went with that mentality after such losses with their gaming divisions, we'd never see a Wii or a 360. You're using too much rhetoric in a logical situation such as this. If you'd like to discuss probable scenario's I'd be more than happy to carry this on.
Analysis is fantasy horse-race by nature.
"by 2010" I interpreted as "through 2010" because by 2010 would be Jan 1st, 2010 
"by 2010" I assume "by the end of 2010". Anyhow... 50-60M is my guess with the assumption they stay aggressive and their stellar 1st party devs show us the goods I expect them to. Lifetime sales (first 6-7 years) of 70-80M. Backwards compatibility will be strong with the PS3/PS4 and the Cell synergy will allow for stellar PS3-PS4 release synergy and co development.
Those are my guesses as well as my basis of "success". Sure, it isn't PS2 wild, but the market is more competitive now, they were late (to push BDR and win there, and important move for Sony in their estimation), and they are just sharing a more segmented pie--but with an eye as the Playstation, finally, as a platform (Cell) which should extend forward in a beneficial way. One step back, two steps forward.
That said, 2007 is gonna be a bumpy ride. The three biggest franchises in NA (Madden, Halo, GTA) are all on their competitor -- who has a price advantage and game library advantage -- and you only have two. Sony and MS are tit for tat with a lot of their software (some great new IPs like Mass Effect and Heavenly Sword), but the Halo 2 craze in 2004 was nuts. IF MS can replicate that momentum 2007 could be a spring board for Sony. Then again Sony has Spiderman 3 BluRay.
"by 2010" I assume "by the end of 2010". Anyhow... 50-60M is my guess with the assumption they stay aggressive and their stellar 1st party devs show us the goods I expect them to. Lifetime sales (first 6-7 years) of 70-80M. Backwards compatibility will be strong with the PS3/PS4 and the Cell synergy will allow for stellar PS3-PS4 release synergy and co development.Those are my guesses as well as my basis of "success". Sure, it isn't PS2 wild, but the market is more competitive now, they were late (to push BDR and win there, and important move for Sony in their estimation), and they are just sharing a more segmented pie--but with an eye as the Playstation, finally, as a platform (Cell) which should extend forward in a beneficial way. One step back, two steps forward.
That said, 2007 is gonna be a bumpy ride. The three biggest franchises in NA (Madden, Halo, GTA) are all on their competitor -- who has a price advantage and game library advantage -- and you only have two. Sony and MS are tit for tat with a lot of their software (some great new IPs like Mass Effect and Heavenly Sword), but the Halo 2 craze in 2004 was nuts. IF MS can replicate that momentum 2007 could be a spring board for Sony. Then again Sony has Spiderman 3 BluRay.
For me, the PS3 is a success if it makes it to 100.000.000 units faster than the PS2 or beats the total number of PS2 at the end of its lifecycle, regardless of marketshare. I'm assuming that the console market will still continue to grow. It's a bit of a high standard though and it wouldn't be an outright failure if it falls a bit short of the PS2's figures. I guess I prefer to have an area inbetween outright failure and success, maybe something like "failure - disappointment - ok - good - success". But I guess that's cheating.
"Success"? Your question is too squishy for a poll.
"Teh win" would be 80~90 million units units through Xmas 2011, which should be the year of another generation's launch. I expect the console market to grow in absolute unit numbers, hence the 80~90 mln range still implies plenty of room for something else.
"Not a failure" would be 40 mln units in the same range. A sharp decline from the dominance of the previous gen but still a healthy amount of business.
Both are "success".
I will not vote in this poll.
Judging from the responses I should have worded the OP more carefully. Sorry guys.
By, "Success", I'm meaning breaking point between "success" and "failure". If it sells more than X it is considered a success. If it sells less than X it is considered a failure.
Just an opinion poll to measure expectation of b3ders.
So far, The Poll is indicating the vast majority here would consider sales of less than 40million, a failure, and over this mark, a success.
As long as PS3 sells 40 million consoles, despite losing Sony billions, the company going bankrupt, and the console only having a terrible software lineup, it's a success.
No sorry. As long as it sells 40 million, when XB360 and Wii sell 120 million each, it's a success, despite the devs not bothering to develop software for it and all the good games coming out for other platforms.
Um...
You know, you've elliminated all rational measures of success from your question! It's like asking 'How many games must Woking FC win for you to call them a success Disregard whether they get relegated or lose money and have to close down, etc.' Or even 'How tall must a person be to be considered a success. Disregard how wealthy they are, healthy, nice, happy, how many friends they have, etc.'
For PS3 to be a success, it has to earn Sony a profit, provide a great service to its customers, attract the variety of games and applications needed, and make up a substantial percentage of the overall console market in order to attract developer support. Number of units has sod-all to do with it, to be frank. I've always scratched my head when people have called GC a failure, when it worked well for Nintendo, made them money, and gave owners the games they wanted.
The units sold and consequently mindshare and games selection of GC was severely limited. However not many predicted domination for GC before it launched.
It's a simple opinion poll to see how many units you (as a b3d member) would deem a success for PS3. B3d members Expectation poll. That's it. I'm sensing a lot of anger and bitterness in a few posts when in reality I'm simply asking member opinion.
Why is this such a negative thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
Readykilowatt
Regular
How many PS3's would be necessary to call ps3 a success in your eyes by 2010?
Disregard Profit/loss, games, quality of games, etc.
2011 is possibly the time frame we might see ps4 or xb720 and may prove to be a more forgiving timeframe, however I am of the opinion next-nextgen will start in 2010. WiiHD will kick start it!
context:
81.1million ps2's by the end of the 5th year - fyi (same time frame) *roughly -xbd
If the PS3 fails to make a profit by the end of its "life", it's a failure.
The units sold and consequently mindshare and games selection of GC was severely limited. However not many predicted domination for GC before it launched.
It's a simple opinion poll to see how many units you (as a b3d member) would deem a success for PS3. B3d members Expectation poll. That's it. I'm sensing a lot of anger and bitterness in a few posts when in reality I'm simply asking member opinion.
Why is this such a negative thing?
I can't understand why people have a problem understanding this poll
It seemed pretty simple to me. If I look back at the sales of a console, i don't need to know how happy it made the people who bought it, or if it made the manufacturer any money or even how much of the market it made up to decide if it was a success. All I need to look at is perhaps how it sold compared to its precessors (if they exist) it's successor (again, if they exist) and its competition. We can look at PS2 and say with some certainty it was indeed a success. It sold more than its precessor, and more than it's competition. Likewise i can look at the GC and say it wasn't, it came a close third last time around, and it sold less than the N64. All you people need to do is think to yourself, at what figure would i do the same for the PS3? In my opinion, if PS3 can get within about 80% of last time (taking into account the exceptional circumstances last time around) then it's a success. If it can't, then I would consider that a failure.
Why is this a hard concept?
Because it's illogical! The purpose of consoles isn't to sell lots of units. That's a means to an end. The purpose is to be fun (consumer POV) and make money (corporate POV). The only people who care whether a console franchise goes from being the number one platform to 'just another console; part of the crowd' are fans who want to see a platform on top, or not.Why is this such a negative thing?
Putting it another way, why doesn't your poll read :
How many units must a console sell this gen to be considered a success?
Why have you singled PS3 out? Because you're interested in the rise and fall of the PlayStation brand as the number one, I presume, and are measuring success relative to previous successes. 'If PS1 and 2 sold 120 million each, is PS3 a success if it only sells 60 million?'
The true answer to 'is PS3 a success' is if you buy one and are happy with it. That's from the gamer POV. For the company, it's a success if it proves profitable, perhaps in the long, long term. Xbox may eventually be considered a success if, for losing all that money, it wins MS the living room and loads of cash. Number of units sold is unimportant. If you were to start a business, would you consider it a success if you sold 20 million Thingies and lost $5 million? Would you consider it a success if you sold 1 million Thingies and made $20 million profit? Would you consider it a success if 10 million people bought a Thingy and they all suffered a debilitating accident due to a design fault? Or if only 50,000 people bought a Thingy but it was enough for you to pay the bills and those 50,000 are much happier for owning their lovely Thingie?
What's bugging me here is the measure of success. It seems people have some dodgy ideas of what consititutes success, as though selling lots of units, and more units than rival, is all that matters in this world. Perhaps you just picked a terrible phrase for what you are actually asking? Though as it seems to me, best I can guess, your question is purely one of relative performance between PS3 and PS1 and 2, in which case your idea of success really is just one of selling more or less.
Shifty - I recall you stating you don't like to ponder future goals for platforms. That's fine. You have 0 expectation. If you'd like to participate in this thread and poll, please vote for the selection that matches your opinion (<20) and leave it at that as you've explained your position of no expectations before.
How is that any better than his question? If you're right and it is a means to an end, then this question is no more relevant. I do believe this question is relevant though because as you point out, it's in relation to it's predecessors. I just happen to believe that it does matter, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
There is more to consider though than the console makers success. I get the feeling EA would be a lot happier with the 20 million thingies than the 50,000. Units sold matters because it's one of the only metrics we have access to, and also because it is a major factor in persuading a developer to produce a game for that system.
It's not all that matters, but as I said above, it's one of the only things we can measure. Perhaps if there was data on the money Sony makes on the PS2 or PS3, or the happiness of customer index, Chef would have made a poll about that, but there isn't.
It's not.
It's just illustrating the focus on a single platform. Why is TheChefO asking for measures of PS3 in terms of units sold, but not other platforms?Thinking about it some more, I'm thinking the question here is probably something quite different to what is worded. I think the real intention is to gauge how far PlayStation can scale back and still remain a strong brand. The problem with the word 'success' is it needs qualifying as to what you're measuring. I think the original intention was to do that by elliminating categories, but it came across as rather...odd to me.
Is the question something more like...
Sony have had two very strong devices in terms of units sold, managing n million in m years. If PS3 doesn't sell as strongly, what is the minimum number of units sold in m years that you think Sony can be happy with as maintaining a strong brand?
I can at least the point of such a question as that anyway, even if I wouldn't care to partake. Asking how many units makes PS3 a success, without defining success, and not caring about the other platforms, just confuses me!
Similar threads
- Locked