exactly...

I see many that tend to concentrate on just one of a company's product performance in order to say that it's lower market share is worse than another. that's kind of like saying Ignore all the other product's in direct market that we also maintain that is also on the shelf not even counting the other companies product's.

Like i said you can take one product an make it's market share look bad .

there is a point that market saturation has already happened since there is so many game system's on the market what would you expect to happen. 

If anything it's quite unexpected for all the product's to have sold as well as they have. that's the real suprise

an yea anytime you can attain 20% market share with just one product in a line of many other product's that are in the direct market your product is in is no way that I COULD SEE IT AS A Failure when it has not been on the market long at all.

Here's my take on the PS3 at this point.

It's never been stronger. With all the systems being sold. Blu-Ray Disc sales will increase. DualShock 3 sales will increase. Game sales will increase. PSN accounts increase. Playstation Store sales increase. DLC sales increase. etc.

Sony can now start really rolling in cash because of this. Let's not forget, there are people who purchase Playstation Home content as well. How many I don't know, but there are people who do.

That also means that Home will benefit, because more people will have access to it. If Free Realms ever releases on PS3 (through DD) they will have yet another revenue source.

The Playstation 3 is unstoppable and Sony can keep it going much longer than the PS2.

Here's a take on sony's strategy from somebody that actually has a degree in finance.......

Sony wants to use the PS3 to drive sales in its other divisions, and lately has emphasized internet connections with its other divisions (TVs, etc).  The more PS3's sold, the more Blu-rays will be sold, the more CD's will be sold, the more games sold, the more HDTV's sold (the PS3 was a big part of Sony's HDNA - High def is in our DNA marketing campaign).

In terms of price and value, sony went for a high-end piece of the market initially, with a reliable product.  Lately, it has used its long-standing expertise in electronics to give us a game changing slim version of the PS3, which has done a lot for the brand. 

In terms of ability to spend cash, and the toleration of the risk of losing money with its projects, it is much safer and less likely to spend big on marketing than microsoft and is actually pretty close to nintendo.  MS went all out with its Natal thing, its either going to make them billions or make them lose several hundred million, and i'm thinking the latter but this is better discussed elsewhere.  BUT, things are getting better for sony, so expect them to compete more with the money hatting thing to get exclusives, expect more marketing mabey even to 360 levels in 2010, and expect in general a more aggressive sony in 2010/2011 than what we have seen.  MS is very aggressive, when sony makes a cut, they will too, but sony is losing less $$$ and will soon be making it so expect them to use some of that to strike back with.

Also, notably, the PSN isn't the only sony network venture.....Sony is also aiming to connect almost all of its products, HDTV's , PS3's , PSPgo's, PC's , Blu-ray and DVD players to connect to the internet so that Sony can sell people stuff over the net, which will offer higher margin ( or something sold online has a greater chance of being for profit than something sold out of some walmart ).  Also, I expect the PSN service to get a lot better, so that it is a strength rather than a weakness, b ecause sony wants the higher margins.

Also, a lot of people have said that Sony is becoming an intellectualproperty/royalty company as well as a consumer electronics company.  It brought the first OLED TV to market and will be getting patent money from the other TV makers if they want to make TVs.  It will be getting patent money for its blu-ray product as well.

Gran Turismo 6
A lot of people ask why Sony released Gran Turismo 6 on ps3. They say it would have been perfect for ps4 at release, and it's widely felt that the decision somewhat hurt the ps4's lineup at launch. xbox1 after all, has forza, which looks amazing and is on trend to sell 1m world-wide very shortly (within 2013), and this decision could end up pushing sim racer fans to the xbox.

The strategy:
Polyphony recently released a breathtaking GT6, but does it deserve to be given a full entry title? Does it really deserve that 6 added to the name? In all honesty, not really. GT6 is simply a slightly upgraded mold of GT5 with the added inclusion of a whole lot of microtransactions. It's definitely a change of pace, including the paid-DLC and online aspects, but it's little more than a quick entry, with lots of features still incomplete. Hell, they still haven't even finished all the car models. So, what's going on here? What have they been working on all this time? GT6 really could have played a part in the ps4 launch so why in Satan's name are we seeing #driveclub instead?

#Driveclub's Evolution studios are makers of Motorstorm which is- you guessed it- another launch title for a previous gen. Evolution is a launch developer, and Motorstorm, well Motorstorm has been slowly depreciating with every title since the first. So it only makes sense that they were tasked with making a new racing IP for the launch of a new gen. It's simply what they're good at and being that they're a more flexible studio who is willing to try new things for a new generation, why not have a preliminary testing of the waters?

After all, both Evolution and Polyphony are Sony studios, it just makes sense to try looking at GT from a new perspective before releasing a new entry. PD has even gone on record as saying that they prefer releasing title's in a more robust environment with a strong userbase. Consider this, an even worse outcome of seeing diminished console sales due to the lack of a pre-eminent next-gen racer would be releasing a racer in direct competition with forza combined with the typical lackluster sales of a launch title. Such an outcome would be to the obvious detriment of the GT name, especially given the chance that Forza could actually outsell the premier racing title.

Ok, so now we know why GT6 is a ps3 title. It's a safe release that's sure to make profit reusing many of the same assets from GT5 and enjoying a nice solid userbase. Immediately, judging by GT6's sales, we can see that it just makes more sense to do it this way. Let the new franchise venture out into next-gen, and focus on the brand. Some say that #DC will cannibalize GT sales, but really it's so blatantly obvious that #driveclub's single purpose is to compliment GT. Starting at GT6 we see the clear move by PD to a more online focus. We don't even have to go that far, we can look at the ps4's own strategy toward social networking, even the competition makes it clear with Forza taking a strong 2.0 push with it's xb1 title using cloud profiles to automate your career and play against friends. Social is the next step for these racers. The historical single-player focus for GT is changing, and Sony is using #driveclub as the blueprint.

Oh, and don't be surprised if it eventually comes out that assets are being shared by the two dev firms. Maybe it will not be so direct as entire car modeling- after all PD is extremely proud of its property- but expect things like physics, lighting, technicals, and measurements to be extremely similar. It is very likely that PD will continue to work on tracks and cars, and Evo will work on network and gameplay in a kind of symbiotic relationship. I would guess that a little less than 2 years after driveclub, we will see GT6: Evo or GT7. The release date really all depends on how many consoles Sony can put into people's homes. A good number would be 20million+ until we see GT. Yep, I'm saying that this next-gen GT will be released a lot earlier than GT did for ps3, and it's because of this relationship that I make this statement.

Well, there you have it, the reasoning behind Sony's decision to release GT6 on ps3- or at least my best attempt to explain it.
Hope you enjoyed reading it, as usual feel free to leave comments at the bottom. Thanks
-Prof

It's interesting to see how most of your predictions actually came true. A few posts too managed to nail down some of the features that would become an important part of both the PS4 and the Xbone.

I agree. Driveclub is basically GT Prologue in disguise. I will be picking it up along with Infamous in April.

"The Sony strategy, of course, is to disrupt the PC market. Granted, the PC market is still thriving and growing, but the ps1 and ps2, were the first systems that allowed PC gamers to realize that console graphics and price difference could really rival PC systems. "

It's not disruption, because the console market has always been around. I'm not sure if it's safe to say it was a mature industry at that point, but you had 2 decades+ of consoles. Consoles disrupted the arcade market.

The problem of the PC market has always been how non-user friendly it is. You're not going to get your little 6 year old Johnny a $1000+ computer (actually, that brings it up to an even bigger problem. Young children might not even get a computer in the first place until they're older) with decked out graphics cards, CPU, etc.

No, you're going to get him an easy to use and understand console for cheap.

"PS1 was one of the first consoles to allow for cd-music playing. This first move targeted stereo systems and gave users a way to start working with media.

PS2 began DVD playback. This targeted home DVD players.

While these seem more like Sony is targeting livingroom disruption, don't be confused. It may seem like these options actually bolstered the computer through cd and dvd burning. But these were only the first steps. Let's continue."

I don't think Sony's intentions were to replace the CD or DVD player. Prove your point by looking at Sony's marketing at that time. Is that the message they push? And more importantly, did they succeed at this so callled "disruption"?

Let's address the broader and more important point.

When I think disruption, basically I see a product that either changes the status quo and/or enters into a totally new market.

I don't think the PS1 or PS2 "disrupted" the industry. They didn't attract people who listen CDs or watch DVDs to play the PS2. You could say that the CD gave Sony an advantage over Nintendo, but to me that's the same thing as hardware specs.

What you're implying with the PS4 is that it's actively targeting the PC market. Trying to steal share from it. And that doesn't make sense. Why would Sony want to steal share from such a small market, that's already made huge investments into their gaming rigs, and have an emotional investment into PC gaming?

I would think that Sony's more interested in stealing share from the Xbox.

Very interesting points and reasoning... although I don't see how an earlier release of Gran Turismo in a console (thus having a smaller userbase) would hurt the IP. GT3 came out only 1 year after PS2's launch and it became the most successful game in the series. As the console sells, the game sells too. Is this hard to believe? In my opinion, the reason for the GT6 to have been launched on PS3 was because that was Poliphony's plan since the beginning. Like they ended a cycle with GT4 on the PS2, they wanted to do the same on the PS3. Plus, they didn't have yet any next-gen concept to deliver so, as you said, to launch GT6 (a game that only consolidates what GT5 attempted to do) on PS4 would have been strange at least.

As for the symbiotic relationship between Evolution Studios and Poliphony Digital, I don't know how real it is. What you said makes sense, these two can benefit from each other. But I'm not sure whether the shorter production cycles of GT games have anything to do with that. GT6 took only 3 years after the 5.5 years of GT5 and, like you, I expect GT7 to come after 2 years or so. But the reason for that I think it's not about cooperation with other devs. Japanese game studios have been realizing that controlled production cycles like the Western does (for example with Call Of Duty, Assassin's Creed and Forza) are much better for profits and even for the sake of the series than launching the game only when the initial ambition is achieved, not matter how long it takes (like it happened with Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Tekken 6 and The Last Guardian that didn't even came out at all). Therefore, some of them are already adopting the Western good practices, including Square Enix (which launched FF XIII-2 after 2 years and Lightning Returns again after 2 years) and Poliphony (which is starting to shorten GT's development cycle).

Hey and thanks for your response and input.

I agree that GT might not have hurt the IP, but I think we can both agree that it would certainly be safer for the IP (both sales wise and recognition wise) to release after Forza and Need for Speed. PD are kind of a prestigious group...sorta like the old Pixar...a virtual-independant studio dedicated to the craft. One of the reasons why they never had car damage was because car makers didn't want to show the realism of what their safety looked like, or so the legend says. Maybe not a smarter choice, but surely wiser. But yeah, you have a point about the sales. I just have a strong feeling that this is a 2-fold solution. 1) Image maintenance 2) evolving standards

As for the relationship, I would imagine that it's actually Evolution that would benefit more from the shortened cycle. I mean, this is a launch game with so much attention paid to detail. It's not impossible, or even improbable, but one does wonder how they can manage such attention to detail without having any of the previous equipment. I mean, they're starting from scratch...compared to the Forza or GT people.
There's also argument I could see about just how willing PD would be willing to share its jealously guarded assets, a very limited fashion would make sense to me though.

I also agree about the controlled production cycles aspect, however, the controlled production cycle would say release gt6 on both consoles. That would be the Western standard, which was what we saw with the western multiplats. It's funny that you mention this because this question actually started off in my head as "why didn't PD release GT6 on ps4". Sure it makes sense that gt6 should be on ps3, not only from a 'best-practices' standpoint, but also from a fan standpoint. Only one GT on a console is kind of a let down....but also gt6 this crazy late in the gen is awkwardly placed, at best. My quickshot to take from this thread would be PD released GT6 late as a quick installment that would serve as a mockup for their next-gen title while Evolution went in and scouted around first, possibly giving Sony a fresh new IP in the process from a dev whose major franchise was not doing so well.

I think that GT shouldn't be conditioned by any other driving game. Maybe that kind of thinking is a result of long waitings for a next iteration ("then it has to be perfect...it has to be flawless...it has to come at the right time...maybe the right time hasn't come yet"). Need For Speed comes every year, so EA doesn't need to have that kind of concerns. They just release the best game they can in that time frame. Forza comes every 2 years, so Turn 10 follows a similar philosophy. If Poliphony Digital wants to reduce the production cycle of GT they need to stop worrying about those things. In my opinion, the only concern they should have is to release 2 titles per console (the 1st to revolutionize and the 2nd to consolidate). That's what they did with PS2 and it has worked quite well. And even this should be a flexible strategy for them. The main rule could be a new GT every 2 years and then in the 3rd they would make the decision of launching it for the current or the next console (that's what Forza did and it seems to work fine).

In my view, they're just afraid of trying new things. And when they do so, it's just on top of what they already have. It hardly interfers with the core game (architectured since the beginning).

Allow me to make a comparison: GT and TOCA, two motorsport racing games that came from totally different points. TOCA was launched every 1 or 2 years and thus Codemasters was never afraid of trying new things. Therefore, TOCA rapidly incorporated real tracks, real championships, many cars in a race, car damages, different racing classes. Were they flawless? Of course not. They were included asap and enhanced among the iterations. Real tracks were better designed game after game. Championships were simplified in TOCA1 (regarding tracks, cars, points, starting positions and other details) and then improved to better match reality in TOCA2 and TOCA3. Number of cars per race got increased too, from 14 in TOCA1 to 20 in TOCA2. Car damage animations got improved from TOCA2 to TOCA3. Racing classes exploded from TOCA1 (only with Touring Cars, Gran Turismo and NASCAR) to TOCA2 (added Rally, Trucks, Classics, Open Wheel and many more).

On the other hand, Gran Turismo got all those features but much later and, like I said before, without affecting the core game. Real tracks came slowly and didn't make the "faked" tracks to disappear. Real championships (like WRC and NASCAR) only came in GT5, in a very small number and just on top of the "faked" ones, which continued to be the core game. Many cars in a race only came from GT HD onwards. Car damages only came in GT5, only for some cars and only some kind of damages (again, a very restricted feature). Different racing classes were already available in GT3 (GT, Rally and an almost non-existent Open Wheel class), then GT5 got NASCAR and now I don't know if they're adding more categories.

As you can see, TOCA got everything much earlier and decided to improve on something that could exist since the beginning. GT was far more popular and that heavy crown made them to be afraid of trying new things or alter the core experience.

Not exactly. MotorStorm was already a very sophisticated game. For example, every vehicle of that game (from 2006) was created piece by piece. They could mount and dismount any vehicle until the smallest tiny component. The physics were also very sophisticated and even the human behaviour had some cutting-edge tech. Not to mention the graphics were astonishing and the beatiful and high-detailed landscapes from the original game and Pacific Rift are a good starting point for the development of a game such as Drive Club.

My quickshot would be: Evolution Studios is like Codemasters, they're not afraid of being the pioneers. Poliphony is (became) more conservative, they want to do well at the first attempt.

I find your comments very informative too. It's good to share views with you.