@ Zucas.
I think the main issue your having is you overestimate the strength of the Sony brandname. The reality is most PS2 upgraders will upgrade to a new console based on game loyalty, not brand loyalty. It is certainly true that all things being equal, they'd choose a console from a company they are familiar with when following their games, but with Microsoft stealing exclusives and the high PS3 price, all things are not equal.
That said (and you may never, EVER hear me say this again), you are being too hard on the PS3. At its current price, there is nothing particularly wrong with the console needing the value add-in of a solid game title to help push hardware. People wanted to follow MGS, and its far easier to justify doing that if Sony is throwing in the game for (close too) free.
The only problem with this, is that it costs Sony a substantial amount of money. For example, the reason Microsoft made it to profitability in 2007/2008 Q1 rather than Q2 (when we expected it) was Halo 3 software sales. By bundling MGS4 (a third party game), Sony not only lost software royalties, but they probably actually had to PAY Konami for each bundled unit sold, which would increase their loss on each PS3 sold bundled with the game.
Furthermore, if they have to bundle the PS3 with a game like Resistance 2 this Christmas (a title that is close enough to first party) or Killzone 2 early next year (a title that IS first party), they could lose millions of dollars in software revenue/profit.
There is nothing wrong with a console needing games to sell in principle, the issue is that it compounds the financial woes of an already struggling Sony games division.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
