Good thread. I enjoyed reading the OP. I can tell you have noticed a decline in interest into the Sony platform when going from PS2 to PS3. We all know the PS2 was a console that boomed. It is still the number one best selling console ever. So why now is the PS3 instead of having a booming status, just have a steady slow growth status? PS2 dominated last gen of course. I truly believe one of the main reasons the original xbox stayed alive was because of Halo. That was really their only mainstay exclusive that hit a hugely popular chord, because it was something new, and had a compelling story. The PS2 had a crap load of exclusives like Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, and Gran Turismo among others. This gen we see almost completely new exclusives on the PS3 due to many of the PS2 exclusives becoming multiplat.

IMO the main issue all of the PS2 owners and fans did not switch over to the PS3 was HUGELY due to its ridiculous entry price of $500 and $600 models. They were the most expensive system on the market. What also added to the problem is that they released their system late. Comparatively Xbox had no chance against the PS2 in popularity terms. The X360 however released as the first HD console. Some of those gamers didnt feel like waiting for the PS3 so they decided to jump the gun and try out the X360. Some of the original games for X360 grew in popularity. Once the Wii released some of the casual gamers from the PS2 saw how fun it looked and decided that system will fulfill their casual gaming needs. By the time PS3 had their system released the X360 already had a year of market saturation and the people that went from PS2 to X360 were becoming hooked into the X360 system, and some of the Wii purchases owned a PS2. The remaining PS2 owners that were waiting for the PS3 were stunned by the initial pricing. Its difficult to swing $500 or $600 for a new console that didnt have too many games for it yet.

So one of the main issues why we havnt seen the PS3 come close to PS2 numbers is due to its late release and its initial pricing. It has not saturated the market like the PS2 was able to do due to PS2's 3rd party support and exclusive titles. Over the last few of years we have seen the PS3 start to pick up in sales due to its price reduction, rebranding in the Slim release, and some growing popularity in exclusives. the PS3's strong point is mostly Europe, and some in Japan. But, the U.S. is not the place for PS3. It is being outperformed there. The systems are almost becoming more regional now.

In reply to the OP understand where you are coming from with your analysis of the current PS3 exclusives. Any avid PS3 player will say they LOVE some of the exclusive titles for PS3, but why does that not translate in sale numbers when compared to other console's exclusives. Granted im not saying PS3 exclusives are not selling well. They have exclusive titles that are very much over the platinum status in sales, but none of them (except for GT5 and maybe MGS4) have received the popularity like a couple exclusives on X360, and also on the Wii. while I will say PS3 current exclusives do have relatively some appeal, they are not causing gamers to come to them in droves. I have said before that the face of PS2 to me was games like Final Fantasy, GT, and GTA. The face of PS3 is just a slew of random titles, but if I had to pick one it would probably be GT5. I do agree that PS3 lacks a title/character that says, PS3! Xbox has MasterChief in Halo. Wii has Mario in a number of big games. PS3 to me does not have a character or face in a title that embodies a PS3 identity. To an avid PS3 gamer they will disagree with me, but by in large most mainstream gamers cannot pinpoint a character or title that really stands except GT, which does not really have a character. I admit that Kratos is close to becoming that face, or at least a current candidate. I really dont see PS3 overtaking this gen by any means unless they scrap some of their low performing exclusives, and concentrate on a character/face that embodies PS3 and makes people say, "I want a PS3 to play as, (insert character here)!".

But I dont think it is only due to relating to people with their games and lack of a main face. I think its part to do with Marketing and really pushing their image of why they are the best console available. It is evident that they do not have the prowess they did with the PS2, but the playing field has changed. Their is more competition and it has become more effective. So too Sony must become more effective in getting their identity and image across.

Lets see, we're 2 or 3 years ahead of next gen, you can't make that assumption just yet. Let's compare the PS4 to the Xbox 360 which had a wonderful start to this gen.

Look at Microsoft. All they had pre-X360 was Halo. That was their only big game. Then look at the 360, they released a 6-million seller (Gears) in their first year. Then in the 2nd year, they had a few 2-million sellers (Mass Effect, Bioshock, Dead Rising). Forza 2 sold around 4 mil and Halo grew to 11 mill. They also had some pretty superior multiplats like AC1 and MW1. Note that many of the 360's early exclusives went multiplat.

Now let's look at the PS4. It has a 5/6-million franchise (Uncharted). It has a 10 million franchise (Gran Turismo). It has another 5-million franchise (God of War). It has a 3/4 million franchise (LittleBigPlanet). It has numerous 2-million franchises (Killzone, inFamous, Resistance, Heavy Rain). Note that these games will never go multiplat.

We also have future titles which could be mega franchises on the PS4 (Twisted Metal, Starhawk). Who knows, maybe AGENT will be super successful and have a sequel on the PS4.

You seem to forget the importance of New IPs. This is probably the most important factor. Some of the biggest franchises this gen are new IP's like Assassin's Creed, Gears, Uncharted, etc. No one knows if one of sony's dev makes a mega franchise. Look at how ND went from Jak to Uncharted, or Sly to inFamous, etc. Who knows, SONY Could buy a new studio which racks in millions. And the biggest game COD wasn't that big last gen. No one expected COD to be as big as it is. No one knows if one of Sony's IPs grows to be mega huge. Look how much bigger God of War got this gen. Look at how much bigger Killzone got this gen.

So yeah, no one knows what IP's will be created next gen or what franchises will blow up next gen.

And you also have to consider that the PS4 will be easier to develop for. This means that MS will not be getting the superior multiplats (or at least, not very superior) next gen.

So, in conclusion:

We have no clue of the new IPs next gen, which will likely be pretty important.
We have no clue which IPs this gen will grow into mega frnachises next gen. A generation's most successful IP's are not determined by the successful IP's of last gen (unless your Nintendo). This has happened rarely with GTA, GT, Halo, and MGS. No one last gen could have predicted the huge success of COD, AC, Uncharted, L4D (it's Huge in NA) Gears, LittleBigPlanet, Fable, God of War, etc.

I thought the situation was way way worst for Microsoft actually. Nintendo is the only one that can really sell console without 3rd party support though.

I disagree with you. The fact that the PS3 has been so popular in recent years is largely to do with its large and varied number of exclusives which cater to everyones taste. I have to agree that a large number of PS 3rd party developers are going multi-plat but I think that is expected considering that xbox has just a fraction more

Your theory works better if you have Japan in mind.

Lesson for next gen Sony. Either bundle games with every console or put it with a controller for $5 dollars more than it costs without the controller.

I agree with a lot of what was said - Sony's first-party IPs tend to struggle, relative to those of Nintendo and Microsoft (although MS's lineup isn't particularly strong, either, with the only truly notable title being Halo). But the part I quoted, I think you've gotten slightly wrong.

It's not that Sony needs to get rid of franchises. It's that they need to be willing to let franchises go on hiatus, or at least have longer development times between games. If you look at the king of first-party, Nintendo, you'll see that they have quite a few "weak" franchises - Star Fox, Kirby, Pikmin, Punch Out, F-Zero, Mother/Earthbound, Fire Emblem, etc, etc. These franchises simply don't compare to the Wii series, Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon. But Nintendo still makes them. Why? Because variety is important, and individual games don't actually sell systems on their own.

Take, for instance, Killzone. There has been roughly a new Killzone every 2 years (including the spinoff title). This, in the scheme of things, wouldn't be too bad, if FPS wasn't an overdone genre already. If the franchise became a "once per generation" franchise, instead, it would have enough time to gain incredible new elements to recapture the interests of people who like such games, and with one per generation, it would become a real treat.

With the extra time, they can have the game being built on the backburner, while putting more effort into other titles. This opens up room for new IPs of a variety of sorts.

One thing Sony is missing is a mascot - a first-party character that they can use to represent the company, a character that is mainstream. None of their character-driven franchises are strong enough, at this point, with their strongest-performing game with a character even remotely resembling a mascot being Uncharted, at less than 5 million. Nintendo has Mario and Link (not to mention Samus, Wario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong... the list goes on), Sega has Sonic, Capcom has Mega Man and Ryu (and a few select others), Microsoft has Master Chief. Sony had Crash, but Crash was a third-party character, and has since shown up on other systems. Nathan Drake is the best that Sony can do at the moment, and he's just not that much of a mascot.

With a mascot, you can do more than just one type of game. A mascot franchise can be expanded into many subfranchises, all of which act in a convergent manner to further capture the interest of the mainstream. Mario is in many games... but people don't tire of him, because each type of game only happens occasionally. There's one Mario Kart per generation (well, two, counting portable generations separately), there's one 2D Mario per generation (when Nintendo does the right thing), etc. In a rare situation, you see a second one, as with Galaxy 2, but that happened because they had too many ideas, and couldn't fit them all into one game within the time period available.

And the mascot titles can undergo much more stringent quality control. If everyone knows that a game with your mascot in it will be good, then they're more likely to buy games with your mascot in it. Nintendo does this with Mario, making sure that all Mario titles live up to a higher standard (the standard is very high - consider that people considered Super Mario Sunshine a "weak" Mario title, when they would have called it an exceptionally good title in any other franchise).

Beyond such a mascot series, it's also important to try to diversify without pigeonholing. Nintendo doesn't make a game going "now, who are we going to target with this game". Compare with, say, Ape Escape, a game clearly aimed at children. Sony targets to demographics, when they should be trying to broaden interest. Why not make an FPS that's more colourful, fun, and easily played at parties? I could definitely see a game with Move where one player controls movement, yet all four players can shoot? It could be a colourful game where you're fighting off little green aliens, with plenty of bright colours and funny events, and the winner is the person who gets the high score (with funny events giving more points - shoot the alien on the swing, and watch him go flying into the air, for instance, or ricochet a shot off a can and into an alien's arse). Think the on-rails FPS mode of early Rabbids games, but more zany, more controllable, and tweaked to suit parties.

Look again at Sony's lineup of IPs. Most of them are "Mature" (the gaming sense, not in terms of actual maturity), most of them are dark, many of them are single-player only, and the ones that aren't tend to either be "frag-fests" or minigame collections aimed at children. It just isn't mainstream.

Sony could avoid the problems with this using third-party support in previous generations. However, Microsoft's strength this generation, combined with Nintendo's increasing efforts to appeal to third parties, mean that Sony can't rely on that any more. They need to establish their own breadth of IPs, where right now they only have depth of IPs.