MS as a whole aren't as big of a gaming company as Sony.  But 360 and PS3 are pretty dang close to each other in terms of hardware and software.

Well what are these better selling games, and how mush better do they sale.  Just what are they, and come on like Sony does not have load of unused games franchises.

Look at the thread title. I see no PS3 or 360 in it. 

Cool, too bad i'm only talking about the PS3 vs the 360

Ok

PS3 is out selling 360, even while costing $100 more.
Next week PS3 software for the year will surpass 360s.
360 is losing its early launch lead.
Its lead in Europe has been eroded and now PS3 has out sold it there, wont even get into Japan.
PS3 is on 360 ass in 360 home market.
PS3 is doing all that with stock shortages and greater price.
Align launches and PS3 out sales the 360
PS3 is on a big up turn for some time now, 360 on a down turn.

Not having first parties for MS is a good thing, they specialize in building software and APIs. It's a better idea to lay a good foundation and let the third parties be an independent the creative force, rather than trying to purchase a large portfolio of studios and telling them what to do. MS is far superior to Sony on the developer side, which is why outside of Sony's first parties most companies choose MS as the lead console (superior tools, DirectX/XNA, better online integration/support).

The only downside is it leaves studios free to go multiplat, but given that their strategy has shown almost all multiplats to be superior on the 360 in performance and sales, it's paid off pretty well.

Well, Halo.  Nothing Sony's published in the past half decade even comes close.  Microsoft is pretty strong with secondary brands too, like Fable, Forza and (although not owned by them) Gears of War.  Sony release a LOT more content, but sales wise Microsoft's still even with them overall really.

And yeah, Sony has a TON of dormant brands.  Parappa / Lammy, Jumping Flash, WildARMs, Arc the Lad, Xai, Intelligent Qube, Jak, Alundra, Lemmings, Destruction Derby, Mark of the Kri, Dark Cloud, Popolocrois, Sly Cooper, Dropship, Omega Boost, Rally Cross, MediEvil, Motor Toon GP, SkyBlazer, Draken, Colony Wars, Shadow of the Beast, Discworld, etc, etc.  Lots of missed opportunities for both Sony and MS really imo. :/

Cute, you got no clue wtf you are posting about.

Actually alot of Sony owned Studios have a great deal of atonomy, only the big Japan and London ones really get told and much of that is psn/home and tool kit development.  Might want to look at sales bud many multi plats sale better on PS3 and play better, this is not 2007.

Microsoft has actually games that are heavy name brands on top of having a mascot game being one of them. Uncharted isn't  a heavy name brand, Infamous isn't a name brand, Killzone isn't a name brand. All Sony has is MGS4 which is third party and GT still to this day is Sony's only first party baby and Jak and Daxter and Rachet and Clank are neither heavy name brands. Crash Bandicoot could've been a heavy name brand and a mascot if Sony didn't sabotage everything. Microsoft has Halo which has Master Chief as a company mascot and Gears of War with Marcus fenix quickly having his name become synonymous with the Xbox. Sony's only mascot character to tell you the truth is Snake and he's a third party character so it doesn't really count. Nintendo....that company has name brands up the yin yang....hence why SSMB was formed.

Back to my point though. If Microsoft bought 10 noteworthy companies to make first party games for them, based on the amount they pump out every year vs Sony, they would still have more productivity. If they created name heavy name brand games with at least 1/4 of those companies they would be in great shape.

Now see that is more like an, opinion :) I honestly doubt there is anyone in the gaming community that do not know what Uncharted is after it just destroying competition in awards and critical acclaim in 2009 and heck even now, that's just one example