Times have changed my friend.  Perhaps instead of directing your anger at other companies for daring to put out a successful console of their own and give Sony some much needed competition this gen, you should direct it at Sony themselves for charging a ridicoulous price for the PS3 at a time when the worlwide economy began to enter a recession and development costs began skyrocketing with the advent of HD gaming.

PS1 and 2 owe their success to launching at the start of their respective gens, at mass-market prices right out of the gate, and with plenty of third party software support.  Sony did none of these things with the PS3, and as a result both Nintendo and M$ were able to gain significant ground on Sony and have tremendous success over their previous gen efforts with the Xbox1 and GC.

Also, during the PS1-PS2 eras, Japan was the leading force in driving the gaming industry.  That is no longer the case as Western markets and developers are now the main driving force of the industry, and this has affected Sony the most as they relied more and more on Western markets and 3rd parties make their systems successful.  M$ and the 360 have picked up Sony's slack, and Nintendo is pretty much doing its own thing.

This, 

I would like to add that his last paragraph is one of the funniest things I ever read on VGchartz. There is a GameStop which carries games for every system, If your a gamer why the hell would one go to those stores anyway? HEll you dont even have to leave the house, there's Amazon

Im going to hit this one game at a time

FF13, has been discussed ad naseum

DMC4 design issues made that game suck, explain why it going MP made it suck

Tekken 6, we had to wait that sucks.  Scenario mode terrible Item mode had nothing to do with MP, that would have been there anyway

RE5, RE4 was multiplat and it was good, the RE series was never exclusive, ever. That game was boring cause it was boring, explain

Star Ocean 4, didnt play it, i will admit that it being released on 360 first was stupid, but thats MS moneyhatting right there, blame SE for taking it

Dead Rising 2, all reviews say it was vastly better than 1, explain.

Silent Hill, has been on the downward spiral since 2 and that was b4 it was MP, that has more to do with the constant change in devs.

Spyro and Crash, you do know those had different devs that didnt have the pedigree of ND or Insoniac, now you could argue that because they went MP they had to lose those devs, which I would kind of agree, but then I would place the blame on SOny for not outright buying those franchises and letting Univesal go with and make them mediocore

We dont dont know if any of those games will actually be MP, KH is a multiplat franchise now, its been that way since pratically the start, deal with it. Bully was a MP game. Dont know about the other two

I think you misread that last paragraph..  he wasn't saying you can't get games for every console at one store.  He was trying to make an analogy between the two saying that you need to own multiple consoles to get your gaming fix rather than just one console, the same way you need to go to multiple stores to get everything you need because certain stores only carry certain items.  Though, if you only shop at Wal*mart, you have some serious issues.

However, this analogy is laughable in itself because in the world of videogame consoles you have ALWAYS had to own multiple consoles to get your complete gaming fix, with the exception of the 8-bit era because NES was the only game in town.  Even during the PS1/PS2 days when Sony was dominating, you still needed multiple consoles if you wanted access to all the top games on the market.  N64 had its share of quality 3rd party titles like Turok, Indiana Jones, Rogue Squadron, StarCraft, the WCW/WWF games that were superior to their PS counterparts, etc. And you couldn't get games like Half Life 2, Doom 3, Chronicles of Riddick and the first modern Ninja Gaiden on the PS2... you needed an Xbox for those.

Sony always has a strength, which is why people always touts their strength. The PS3 has had the strongest third place in gaming, which is close in sales to its close competitor. When Sony was on top without major mistakes there was no contest.

Microsoft did pick up Sonys slack. They made themselves virtually equal in terms of third parties so commercially most people wouldnt know the difference outside of price. They used that to get the name brand advantage in America. I doubt it will work next gen if Sony plays it smart because lord knows they cant afford to fuck up marketing-wise in America.

YOur right , i misread and you are right it is laughable because you have had to own more than one console to get a complete gaming fix, last i checked Ninty hadnt gone multiplat for example.

Also to Night Dragon I sold my Xbox after last gen because I realized my PC had all the valuable "exclusives" the Xbox had.

Sooo what you guys are telling me is that you cannot see the problem if there were say....15 different gaming consoles to choose from, every game was Multiplatform? How catastrophic would that be? Astronomical for the gaming world, thats what. Basically it comes down to this.... The "Console War" is too crowded and there isn't enough land to fight over to make it even worth it for each party. If there isn't at least an undisputable winner it makes the whole situation even worse.

You mistake the fact I am a Sony fan that I am just bitter they were not the ones on top but I am simply pointing out how certain choices of this gen are the basis for productivity being so askew. Namely this gen going HD which by default makes development cost more ,and the decision to go Multiplatform which means everyone gets an even smaller slice of the pie.

Now do you understand?