You disregard the PS3 lineup, you belittle it, it's all right there in your posts. Not just the launch lineup, all of it to the present. You don't have a PS3, and if you have one it's a real waste! I won't deny you bring up some good points, I'll give you that, but that's about it. If your gonna come off as a fanboy at least you should've stayed on topic, the moment you started to belittle PS3 franchises and exclusives, boy you don't know the hole you dug yourself into.

What have I said to belittle PS3? Yes I said a negative comment, before 2008 I don't think PS3 had a crazy lineup. Why did I bring that up? I beleive that it affects why Sony didn't make an "mega" franchises. I have never said anything to belittle PS3 games.

Okay, I think Heavenly Sword was rushed, and should have been developed longer. I also think the same for Lair. However I think Blue Dragon for 360 was nothing special. Actually I'm thinking right now, Lair and Heavenly Sword are really the only 2 exclusives (PS3 or other) that I really don't like. Wii Play I don't like either, and it really isn't fair to single those two games out. However they had potential, I was really looking forward to Lair, and it flopped, just like Lost Planet 2.

Why does a single negative comment justify you flipping out on me, and calling me a fanboy?

I do not disregard PS3's lineup, if you look at my past posts, I have never accused Killzone, Resistance, or Uncharted as being a bad game in any way. They are all great games I love. I only said Uncharted was "nothing special." What I was reffering to in that statement was that it was not going to become the new trademark PS3 game, it never became a "mega" title, and I don't think it pushed too many hardware sales. This is why Halo took off, a lack of a proper compeditor. Uncharted was a good game, but it lacked multiplayer, advertizing, and some sort of mass market appeal. Thats why it never became a "mega" title.

You also have no ground to accuse me of not having a PS3. If I said something negative about x-box does that mean i never had a 360 either? I'm not blindly loyal to any console, I never in a single generation of gaming, only owned one console. This gen I have a 360/PS3, last gen a cube/PS2, before that I had both a PS1 and N64 (but my PS1 broke, and at the time I was overly loyal to Nintendo), and before that I had a Genesis and my sister had a SNES (which I later bought off her). I purchased my NES a decade after it was discontinued, and I got my dreamcast because it was cheap when it became obsolete. Handhelds I can admit I only own Nintendo hand helds, in fact every Nintendo handheld except virtual boy. However I trade my DS for my friends PSP every once in a while, and now I'm working on GT for PSP. As for Wii, I borrow one from a friend now and then in exchange he can borrow the 2 Wii games I own (Metroid and Smash Bros).

This is why I think my posts are controversial. I don't blindly look at the market one way. I don't think Wii sales will fall in 2011, it just needs a price cut to be back ontop. I don't think PS3 will sell significantly more consoles then 360 after the holidays. I think weekly sales in 2011 will favor the 360 by a statistically negligable margin (like 1-2k a week average pending game release). I think PS3 sells super well in Japan because of Japanese loyalty and the same goes in Americas for US loyalty. In EMEAA PS3 outsells the 360, but I think it's because the 360 focus's it's games on it's western audience, while PS3 doesn't focus too many titles on a single audience. Thats another reason why PS3 has not seen a "mega" franchise. MS has the advantage of focusing and dominating Americas sales, a good FPS will go "mega", where Sony needs something that attracts all Europeaners (like a racing game).

I made a lot of good points in the past of this article, they speak for themselves. The fact that I can't say a single negative comment about PS3 wothout getting my head blown off. Thats just sad. Especially because the same doesn't hold true for the 360, and even the Wii.

If any general comments I make analysing the market cause people to bite my ear off, that only means I am making good comments. Critical comments cause people to get emotional, and if people get emotional it shows that there are some pre-determined beleifs from some members of this forum. If those beleifs are being questioned, then people will stand up and defend them. If no one here gets annoyed at potentially negative comments about a game or system, then there is no bias, but there is, everyone is biased to some degree. I don't intend to make negative comments about a single platform, but if the thread is about a single platform (in this case PS3, and well PSP too), then I will say both the pros and cons in a debate. I do not try to mask my intentions, or my belifs, I just say how I feel based on how I view the market. Since I don't actually own a Wii or a PSP, I should have bias towards those consoles since I don't see the gaming world accuratly from their perspective, so I try not to be too critical for those consoles. However for the PS3, 360, and DS I think I can be as critical as I choose to be.

Regardless, this does not give you the right to disregard my comments. Just because I say something you don't agree with, you don't have to flip out on me, or simply disregard my comments. I feel like if I say anything negative about PS3 (in a thread about the pros and cons to why PS3 has no "mega" franchise), then my comments get ignored, at least by you and CGI. Other members, some really smart ones, realize that I'm just analyzing the market, and I mean no harm.

Why do you immediatly disregard my post, call me a fanboy, and simply spew hatred onto me? No console is perfect, accept that, and the PS3 did have a very slow start.

Sony came into this generation well prepared for the 3rd coming of the PS1, I.E. total market domination and weak oposition.

I don't believe big franchises need to establish themselves early in a generation, there are just a lot of new franchises released near the start of any new console cycle and its just a game of numbers as to how many new huge franchises emerge. However after the first title is out, most titles don't break out of that initial mould which is why you see consistancy generally once the first generation of games come out in a console cycle. There are very few titles which establish themselves on the 2nd or 3rd version as a mega franchise after having failed to do that previously. The start of a generation is the perfect time to attempt to hit these home runs as they can at the very least be milked for 3-4 game generations.

The simplest answer here is that if Sony hasn't published anything which has hit the home run whilst other companies have, then theres something which Sony is failing to do which Microsoft and Nintendo has done. It's obviously not for  a lack of talent that they haven't sold many 10M selling franchises, funnily enough the closest developer to that mark is Naughty Dog whom had gone down hill  somewhat from their Crash Bandicoot days after they were acquired. The more likely answer is that the way Sony developers make games do not resonate with a wider audience and that its probably how Sony themselves act as a publisher which is the reason.

The hardcore gamer Loves Sony (except for PSN) is iffy on Microsoft (except for Live) and is not so fond of Nintendo.

Order of highest selling published exclusives go Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony in reverse order of how much the hardcore gamers love the titles themselves.

so you think if the ps3 was 300 dollars like every other playstation at launch it would have done anything similar???

no sir 600 dollars and 600 dollars alone was the reason, as for lauch line up's see ps2 vs dreamcast laucnh line-ups. also check the price for both.....

ps3 claiming superior power.... uhhh it is more powerful, developers not knowing how to program it though...yeah me thinks that was the multiplat problem, and also lol at your 360 line up list, how long was it on the market compared to the ps3...........yeah, nice try though.

but I'm pretty sure if the ps3 was 300 at lauch it would have raped fucking face with the same games it had. but the ps3 could never be 300 at launch for obvious reasons so it suffered. claiming it was the games is just something fanboys tell themselves so they can sleep at night. especially those who say it was the games over the price.

question you think the 360 with it's FAR superior line up would still be ahead of the ps3 if it was 300 at launch?

you do know if you align launches of the 2 consoles ps3 is ahead right, and thats with a crappy launch line up compared to 360 games at the time, and costing 200-100 dollars more than the 360 this entire generation, just food for thought.

O.o, these kind of arguments never cease on vgchartz lol. A 'mega-gfranchise" isnt something that is easy to make and Sony has histoorically sat back while 3rd parties created thier frachises. Only after the 1st year of the ps3 have they really started trying hard so its really not that many years...yet. Just my 2 cents

That 1st generation establishment theory is interesting, and well yea it's kind of true in the case of Sony and Microsoft. Some games do emerge as "mega" franchises down the road of a consoles life, but most started on the home consoles first system. However It's not always the first generation that establishes franchises. Take Nintendo for instance, Mario and Zelda started on the NES, Mario Kart and Donkey Kong Country started on the SNES, Pokemon started on the Gameboy, Smash Bros started on the N64, Nintendogs and Brain Age started on the DS, and Wii -- started on the Wii. So with the exception of the N64 and Gamecube, two consoles who didn't really sell that well in the first place, Nintendo has created at least 1 "mega" franchise per console.

For MS it's only Halo, so your theory holds, and for Sony it's only GT, so your theory holds again, but not for Nintendo.

I'll agree that Sony hasn't published anything home-run worthy as a game since Gran Turismo

As for the part I underlined, you can't generalize that. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I like the 360 more then the PS3 (I admit it, big deal), and I love the Wii. I think the Wii has more interesting games then the PS3 and 360. If I had to put those consoles in an order it wouldn't be fair because everyone has different tastes. My tastes do not reflect others, and I think most people in the forums here need to realize that their tastes don't reflect everyone elses.

Well $300 for the PS2 is similar to $400 for the PS3 due to inflation, and if PS3 were $400 at launch, it would definatly sell consoles, but mainly because it's a really cheap Blu-Ray (Since Blu-Rays back then cost $1,000 or more).

Dreamcast is a Sega console, it failed for many reasons other then it's $200 price. It came out way too early into the consoles life, it had a bad image, and it's library was still not that great. Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur. This is also a different topic of discussion, X-Box and Gamecube were relativly cheap consoles, and so was N64, why did they fail?

PS3 is actually graphically not that much more powerful then the 360. What the PS3 can do that the 360 cannot is multi-processing (since it was what seven or 8 cores?). So GT5 with it's pre-rendered backgrounds looks roughly as good as Forza 3, but the difference is 16 player racing not 8. Resistance has 64 player matched, I think Halo 3 was limited to 32. MAG had 256 player multiplayer.

People didn't know how to develop for the PS3 because it was designed very different from any past console or PC. To push games graphically the traditional way PS3 can't keep up with the 360, you have to cheat and make everything multi-processor. So one engine focuses on the players, another the background, another the physics, etc, etc. This too is not the topic at hand.

As for the 360/PS3 library, even if you just compare 2007, and 2006 fall titles, 360 is superior, and that pushed many new console owners to buy a 360. 360 also had a really good early line up. It doesn't matter that the 360 came out a year earlier (which is also another good reason why the PS3 is behind), 2 years into this generation of gaming, 360 had more games. Only in 2008 did Sony stat to match software.

Okay, don't call me a fanboy, thats just insilting. PS3 would definatly have sold better if it were $400, but it still would have sold A LOT more poorly then the PS2. PS2 launched early, and had great games at launch while compeditors came out later and only produced a couple smash titles at launch. This happened this generation, but with Microsoft not having much of an image (from the X-Box), it wasn't as drastic as the PS2 had it.

Thinking the $600 launch price was the only reason PS3 sales are far inferior to PS2 sales is just silly. PS3 has a lot stronger competition, it's always going to be the most expensive platform, it had a very slow start in 2007, etc, etc. I personally think the stronger competition is the main reason PS3 is in third. Stronger competition, cheaper consoles, and a head start on the 360.

Yes if we allign PS3 and 360 launches PS3 is ahead I know. How many people bought PS2's in 2006? Was the current generation of gaming defined at that point? Of course PS3 is ahead of 360 by alligning launces, more and more people are jumping into this generation on a yearly basis. Did you know that the 360 has outsold the PS3 annually in every year except 2009 due to the PS3 Slim? Before the PS3 Slim was launched, 360 was up on PS3 Year on Year for 2009. The PS3 Slim effect is gone, and it's back to 3rd again, where I feel it will stay

Oh, I don't disagree.  But I'd argue PS3 has still managed to maintain the sort of variety previous PlayStations had, the difference now is that it's lacking comparably in (1) exclusives and (2) real killer apps.  GT5 may actually be the first for the latter.

I mention factors to why PS3 doesn't have some "mega" franchises and you and gekkoman go an a rampage trying to insult me because I said one little negative comment about the PS3. Then we go off topic because I have to defend myself from accusations of being a fanboy.

You're not so much rude, but you do say comments that undermine me and make me look like I don't know anything about the market. Sometimes the way you says things is a little rude, but your okay, I don't care about that. Just please don't undermine me if you disagree. I respect your opinions, so respect mine.

"Having a problem being corrected" is an example of undermining me. When someone else stepped in and explained 2nd party I agreed. I had no problem there. You haven't so much corrected me but claimed that "I have holes on my logic" yet never do you explain them. You just tell me I'm wrong because I disagree with you, and that simply does not make me wrong.

From the PS3, Sony had GT3 and GT4 as "mega" franchises, and FF, and GTA were essentially console exclusives, or really really delayed timed exclusives. I've been trying to say that for a while too. I tried to explain this, and you guys ignored me, and I explained some other reasons, and at least gekkoman flipped out on me.

Look there is two sides to a debate, trying to blaime me as the sole perpitrator to this debate is just another way of how your trying to undermine me. All I want to do is debate logic and reasoning. I've been doing fine with everyone else here. With you it seems I can't say anything negative about Sony, because Sony has never made any mistakes with the PS3, and it's sales are low for unknown reasons.

It's good that you won't respond to this. You telling me that I get off topic and this entire message is you telling me off. Your trying to undermine me, and I'm doing my best to be civil. Thats not fair.

The truth is that they don't have any original ideas.  Little Big Planet wants to be Mario, Mod Nation Racers wants to be Mario Kart, and as good as Uncharted may be viewed by many; it is very reminiscent of Tomb Raider (just throw in a lot more shooting). 

Many of Sony's big exclusive games in the past; Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc. were made by third parties.  Now they're on all of the systems.