I'd say Crash was, though that straddles the line since Sony didn't actually own it.  Shame Naughty Dog can't seem to make another franchise that's as successful.

The questions I saw were you saying "What, don't like VGChartz," These would not be helpful to the argument are they detract attention.

1)My claim was always hardware. If I said software, it was a typo (but I hope it would be clear by how I'm wording everything).

2)But data shows that both the month of Uncharted's and GoW3's sales were down over the month prior. This means that neither game could help push software, only in a very short term period (and a week is very short term. For most businesses, short term is less than a year). These definatly would not be Mega hits. If it's only 1 week, how much is that helping? How much of that can we attribute to normal variation?

3)What put Sony on top is that they managed to get all of the third party support, helped by the fact that developers did not like Sega and Nintendo and betted on Sony primarily. There is perfect correlation with when Sony launches and how well they do.

Your claims have been refutted, bottom line, which now leads me to believe that you will perpetuate this given that you couldn't prove me wrong, factually, just for the sake of having the last word.

Someone is arrogant. I have thrown a lot of knives at your argument with no rebuttle. I would love to see your response.

I agree with you, The PS3 has a lot of great franchises, but they lack the talent (and the budget) to make a "mega" franchise.

Also don't bother arguing with CGI, he will argue against any comment even the the most slightly negative about the PS3. Unless you yourself just give up, he will keep comming after you, and he will only argue against the parts of your post he has an arguement for. The rest of the post he will ignore.

To Smashchu2 & CGI Quality:

All exclusive titles do boost hardware sales.

The week before God War War 3 was released, Final Fantasy XIII was also released outside of Japan, and 2 weeks before that it was Battlefield Bad Company. Yakuza 3 was also released outside of Japan the week God of War was released.

Soo starting with the week ending the 27th of February PS3 sold 234k, then the week of Battlefield (Week ending March 6th), the PS3 sold 208.5k or -11%, then the week of Final Fantasy XIII (week ending March 13th), the PS3 sold 230.7k or 11%, then the week of GoW and Yakuza (week ending March 20th), the PS3 sold 229.9k, or -0%, and the week after sales jumped due to the launch of Fist of the North Star in Japan. It jumped to 243.9k that week, or 6%. Four weeks later PS3 sales were at 148.4 k weekly, which is like a 40% drop.

We can't pin how many sales were attributed to God of War 3, but it did boost sales, maybe only by 20k, maybe by 100k, but for all future console owners, thats 1 more game to convince them to finally get a PS3.

As for Uncharted 2, PS3 sales were slowly dropping due to the wearing off of the Slim effect. Before the game sales were at 241.7k, and then jumped to 266.2k, or 10%. It may not be a huge jump, but sales do jump from games that only end in 2-4 million sales. Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, even multiplatform games like FFXIII boost sales. It' silly to argue otherwise.

As for Smashchu's point about random weeks consoles can by up or down by 5 or 6%, thats true. Sometimes wal-mart has a sale on Wii games, people walk in and end up bying a PS3 because they were already there for a separate sale, and were considering a PS3 prior. Sometimes consoles jump because people just coincidently bought a lot of that console in one week. However games still generate hardware sales, I know people who were considering buying a PS3 for God of War 3, and when that sexy blue limited edition GT5 PS3 comes out I expect a big hardware spike, especially in EMEAA where GT games generally get half their sales.

This is however off topic.

Smashchu's original post was about Sony not being able to produce any "mega" franchises outside of GT5, and they relied heavily on third party support in past generations (FF, GTA, and Resident Evil were all Sony exclusives at one point). This is a correct statement.

You see the part I underlined? I don't mean to insult you CGI, but you never address it. You ignored it, and replied to the part of his comment that you wanted to. You complain when he didn't answer all of your questions, and he apoligized when he missed a topic, but you do the same in return.

Anyway keeping this simple, and keeping it on topic to as why these franchises aren't "mega" franchises.

1. I never read SmashChu2 say software anywhere, were talking about hardware and his point is that none of PS3's. Hang on, I will stay on topic.

A topic was raised about an early launch for the console aids in the development of "mega" franchises. This may be true, but isn't required (as in the case of the Wii, and SNES). The PS1 and PS2 did launch early. The PS1 was released after the Sega Saturn, but that thing never took off, and I'm surprised you even included it. The PS1 launched before the N64, so that could explain why PS1 had some extra juice for it's "mega" franchises, if this theory holds. As for PS2, you shouldn't really include the Dreamcast as a competing console that launched prior because It's not really definitive whether or not the Dreamcast was intended as an N64 compeditor. The console was discontinued on January 31st, 2001, the same year the Gamecube and X-box came out, and only a couple months after the PS2 was released outside of Japan. It came out in 1998 in Japan (3 years after N64), and in 1999 for the rest of the world, and during it's life it competed with the N64 for sales.

Anyway the PS2 was the earliest console to launch, so if this theory of "launching first to win." may be true. It's not definitive, I mean look at the Wii and SNES, but it's a valid correlation with successful "mega" franchises, and successful console sales. However a correlation could mean many things, so this point should only be taken into consideration into why PS3 franchises aren't "mega" and not used as if it were a fact. It's a theory, and an interesting one.

2) This point is a bit off topic, so I won't say anything except SmashChu2 did say that PS3's moderatly selling exclusive line-up does not boost hardware sales.

3) Only the bold is on topic. You admit that the PS1 and PS2 relied heavily on 3rd party support to produce "mega" franchises. Yey!! Finally!!!

Sony IP's did hold their own, but with the exception of GT, none of them properly went mega. A lot of them sold well, and are great games, but except for GT Sony never produced any "mega" franchises. That was SmashChu's Original Post, and well it's not really debatable. You agree that Sony relied on 3rd party exclusives for it's previous "mega" franchises, and it's true that the only "mega" franchise that Sony has ever produced is GT.

Thats it, we just answered SmashChu's post that caused all this off-topic debate. Job done.

I never said Gears was a first party. Stop twisting what I say. I said Gears was "in the same boat" as Resistance, as a 3rd party exclusive.

Also Resistance is published by a 3rd party developer. The IP may be Sony copyright, but I only argued that it's not a 1st party game. It's a 1st party IP, developed by a 3rd party developer.

The only thing I was proven was that Resistance is not a second party game, and that was not by you. You have yet to prove me wrong, and I still want to know those "holes in my logic" from that other thread you completly ignored.

I did say Reach was second party because of a mis-undertanding of the term. It was however not explained to me by you. Reach was developed by Bungie after Bungie went independant, it was still a First Party IP (I never said it wasn't), and it was developed by a 3rd party developer (which is it). I thought that was what a second party game is, but I was mistaken. I was not wrong, and the second party term was not explain to me accuratly by you.

You have never proven me wrong, and this is completly off topic, so please lets stop with this.

A The underlined part of Smashchu2's quote way up.

B...Whats B? I have more then 4 paragraphs lol I think your refering to point #2. This topic is off-topic, so I would like us to stop. Were not suppose to derail the topic at hand, thats why I was banned accidently for 7 hours (it was suppose to be a temporary thread ban) on that other thread about why 360 sells soo well. I responded to this in another post to end your arguement, and will not assist you in derailing a topic.

C I'll agree 100% with you here.

D Your ignoring my responce to your #3 arguement and switching topics. This exactly the same thing I underlined in Smashcu2's post. Please don't get off-topic, and please respond to Smashchu2's point, as well as my #3

As for PS3's 1st party IP's being laughable. I think he was refering to their sales in regards to becoming "mega" franchises. A bit harsh be it, it's true. Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, LBP, etc, etc, are far away saleswise from ebing mega. I adressed this earlier, who cares? You agreed with me I recall.

Sonys had series that sold more than Halo AND Gears.

There is nothing wrong with Sony's games, and I will admit that they sell well, but they sell well compared to other third parties, not for what a first party game. Not to be stated as an argument; just pointing out where a lot of this is coming from. I agree with you basically.

As far as arguing with CGI, I think I'm done. I've made my point. I might respond to one last post, but even then I'll forget.

No youre definition of the term second party was different from others, and Resistance is still developed by a 3rd party developer. Wait why did I write published up there, anyway I always argued developed, just made a typo on my last message. I know the IP is first party, but whatever it's still in the same boat as Gears. I was not wrong with my statement, and you never proved me wrong on anything.

And enough of this, seriously, I'm tired of it.