You have forgotten the reason why you first started playing games. To have pure unadulterated fun.

Yes, sales for the most part are everything. Sales are indicative of the broadness of the audience playing the game. Wii Sports with 26 million sales has a broader audience than any God of War, Infamous, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Halo, Gears of War, or Final Fantasy game.

A collection of niche games does not equate to an offering for a broad audience. You are mistaking a company who develops their fanbase as the company who offers the largest variety of games. Sony does develop games for Sony players and does have a broad audience, but the fact alone that the PS3 is in dead last place this generation means they have the least percentage of the total videogame market playing their games. Not very broad at all.

Yes, by all practical means a Honda Civic is a better car than a Ferrarri for the average car buyer. Better gas mileage, more reliable, and it is cheaper. Ferraris are for rich folks exclusively with too much time and money on their hands.

your post has so much bs, gears of war redifinied the genra? bull shit, it was a copy of kill strike( im not sure of the name) same cover system, it had blind fire......

as for halo, time slippetters? perfect dark, only thing it had new was forge mode, everything else from the akibo guns to the regenrating shield was already used.

hits dont have to do with innovation, first off one of the main reasons halo is big is because it well defines the xbox experience, other then that its a mainstream game.

as for gears its also a mainstream game, ms pushed it a lot, ms are better then sony at marketing especially in the us were halo and gears are huge.

your comparing killzone to halo? i understand sony wanted it to become a halo killer, but killzone doesnt copy halo. haze copies halo.

as for godofwar3 copieng devil may cry, gow 3 outsold both versions of devil may cry 4, i dont know if it was insipired by devi may cry, as their are many other hack n slash games, but since god of war isnt innovative how come it out sold the game it copied? which prooves that you dont always need innovation to become a big hit.

also everything has an insipiration, and saying that sony doesnt do anything amazing is just wrong.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

I guess it just comes down to everyone's standard of quality.  I don't know how many would agree with you here, but we are the illogical players you speak of as well.  Most seniors, girlfriends or little children either know nothing else or can't do anythin more complicated than hold right and jump.  I am fully aware that simplicity = popualrity. Look at movies, they weren't as comlicated as they are now. Mediums evolve.  I think games have the same potential.  Very few people watch the contenders for Best Picture, very few will read a book like The Stranger.  Does this mean Twilight eclipses these works?  Oh opinions, gotta love 'em.

Games are about pure, unadulterated fun.  Many games offer this.  

Microsoft has more money to market their games. I mean I saw more adds for Crackdown 2 then I did for God of War 3.

Sony and Microsoft are at battle at making "the" home theatre station. They both want their console to be the centerpeice of your livingroom. Except Sony went all out, making a PS3 Blu-Ray before Blu-Ray was cheap and practical to produce. They put too much in, and it's hurting them. Only recently have they seen a profit. Microsoft simply wanted to control games, and influence movies. I think a 360 successor will try to be "the" home theatre system, but with the 360 Microsoft simply wanted to make a name for themselves.

To put it simply, thats what they are doing, convincing people that they are "the" gaming platform for gamers. Yes Wii sells better, but 360 is the gamers system.

Microsoft still puts out as many great products as Sony does, this year I see 7 big exclusives on both consoles. For 360 there are Halo, Fable, Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Crackdown 2, and Metro 2033 (I know there are more). For PS3 there are GT5, LBP2, God of War 3, Heavy Rain, MAG, ModNation Racers, White Knight Chronicles (Again I know there are more).

However Microsoft has Call of Duty limited bundles, early map packs for 3 more years, and they do stuff like this with all big titles. They have enough money, 360 generates cash, and Microsoft spends it making a name for themselves.

So that is why 360 titles are always soo successful saleswise. Sony on the other hand, I blaime a lack of a solid fanbase. Hear me out, an FPS on the 360 will sell extremly well because the 360 is full of FPS nuts, and has established itself (through a few great early titles, and marketing) as the Shooter console. However Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, and Tales of Vesperia didn't sell that well. Thats because the 360 lacks a significant RPG fanbase. Don't get me wrong, I love my RPG's, especially the 360 installments, however I can see why a lot of die hard RPG nuts don't relate Microsoft to RPG console.

So for the PS3 FPS don't sell well. No matter how good Uncharted, Killzone, and Resistance are, there is a lack of a PS3 favoring FPS fanbase. That shows in it's regional sales (Most PS3 fans are from EMEAA, a place where ALL FPS just don't do that well).

However Racing games sell well on the PS3, so do RPG's. Take a look at GT5 Prologue, and Final Fantasy XIII.

In conclusion, 360 games are successful due to marketing and a strong FPS fanbase, PS3 games generally aren't as successful because established fanbases are for smaller genres like racing and RPG. Many of PS3's past exclusive titles have gone multiplatform as well (See P.S. below)

P.S. for Sony established mega franchises, Final Fantasy was exclusive to Sony during the PS1 and PS2 era, MGS still kind of is, Gran Turismo is also a big Sony branded game, and until GTA IV came out, GTA was largly associated with Sony. God of War is pretty epic still, and so are Kingdom Hearts and Dragon Quest. Resident Evil was mega on the PS1.

Funnily enough, most of those games are not made by Microsoft, while Sony makes just about all of theirs on the list. 

I started by using "My" which was asked for. I am no arbiter of truth or fact.

Many games do offer fun, but I find games becoming a chore with achievments. As the neurotic type, I try to get all the achievments, which many times are not fun at all. This is a problem of my own making. The resolution will be of my own making.

They just dont have the money to focus that much on every franchise,they have lost  tons with the PS3 already,they cant risk having HUGE marketing,and then suffer from bad sales.Thats the main reason Sony keeps it low this generation.

Their main target is to get a part of their money back.

I agree, achievements/trophies suck.  Waste of time and take away from true enjoyment if you let them.  You have to soak the game in.  Sometimes I'll stand in a spot for a minute or two takin in how gorgeous or awesome something is.  I investigate everything.  It's fun to me.  Perhaps it's a function of playing games for so long.  I love Mario, but I can accept and appreciate other things that do their jobs just as well.   

Technically Sony only owns the studios that make their first party titles. Nintendo is the only company to really develop their own games, where only a handful are handled by other studios (Pokemon by Game Freak, and Metroid: Other M by Team Ninja). You may think some other Nintendo franchises are developed by third party companies (Advance Wars and Fire Emblem by Intelligent systems, Metroid Prime, and DKCR by Retro Studios, and Smash Bros/Kirby by HAL Laboritories), but if you do a history lesson, these companies originally branched off from Nintendo R&D 1&2, Nintendo EAD 1-5, or were simply bought out in early life. I beleive Camalot, Game Freak, Team Ninja, and Creatures Inc were the only developers that ever got to work on a big Nintendo project (Golden Sun/Mario Sports, Pokemon, Metroid: Other M, and Earthbound).

This is similar to Bungie, which was conceived by Microsoft.

To my knowledge, the only first party studio that originated withing Sony would have been Polyphony digital, everything else was bought out. Even Square-Enix, Sony bought large shares for that company back during the N64 days, and thats why Final Fantasy games largly remain exclusive.

Edit, I looked it up. Polyphony Digital, SCE, Zipper Interactive, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Evolution Studios, and Media Module are the big ones. So Sony develops Gran Turismo, God of War, Ape Escape, Ico, SOCOM, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Jak & Dexter, Killzone, Motorstorm and LBP

Microsoft has 343 Studios, Lionhead, Rare, Turn 10, and Wingnut Studios. So they develop Halo, Fable, Conker, Perfect Dark, Killer Instinct, Forza, and flight simulator.

Most of these companies have been bought out, the difference from Nintendo to Sony and MS, is that most of their studios separated from Nintendo development studios to work on different games. I think Nintendo only bought Retro Studios.

If your refering to games released in 2010, all 360 titles are published by Microsoft, and PS3 titles are published by Sony.

The answer is "AGE GROUPS". Look alot of people here blame marketing/depending on 3rd party support.... blah blah blah. But selling games and consoles you realise it's the answer is what age groups are buying these consoles.

In order as i see it Nintendo: KIds (families that have kids) and 40 women (all buy what friend s and family have and seldom buy anything different as you can witness on this sight)

                                 Xbox:Young-Teenage boys, 20 men (no real care for saving just wants the next fps thier mates have)

                                 Playstation: 20 men (mostly in ther 30's)  Teenage boys (Generally buys a game after research abit anal, doesn't throw there money around)

I have no real stats on this but I sold the most consoles in canada 2009 so i sort of pick up on these things