Good observation, I never really compared Sony 1st party games, but your right. To be fair, outside of Halo, most of MS 1st party games are also below 4 million. Forza, PGR, Crackdown, Fable, etc etc. I hope Kinect changes that, and I really hope MS puts some serious funding into a Rare game. I mean a proper Conker, Banjo Kazooie, or Conker title would be awesome. Nintendo is the only one with a good backround of IP's to use, and this Wii --- title craze is ridiculous.

There is no arguing with CGI because he will never accept being wrong when he is, and he will hunt you down on the littlest comments ignoring the bulk of the message. He twists the truth of what you said, focus's on typos and small tid-bits because he can't argue the bulk of the comment.

He even agreed to what you initially comment about when I said it, but he argued two pages full with you because your wording was a bit harsh on the PS3. I'd like to see him stand up for the 360 one day. I mean I stand up for both consoles.

Anyway no more off topic posts like this, I hope I solved your little arguement.

I don't mean to be offensive CGI, just man why is everything an arguement...

Gears isn't MS, and thats true. GT1-4 has outsold the Halo franchise, but they get the bonus of the extra PS1 generation.

However the question is, why can't Sony make another "mega" franchise other then GT? Even then GT5 may not sell as well as prior GT's, It may not be a "mega" franchise on the PS3 (could be on PS4 again). So why is Sony having trouble?

A question. What do u prefer many games thats sell good or 1-2 games that sell massive?

A game doesn´t have to sell massive to be good.

True, but I beleive this conversation is about mega-franchises, and mega-franchises have to have games with massive sales, else they're not mega-franchises.

Here is a question,

If a game is bundled such as GT3 and GT4 were, then how do you know it's sales were not the result of bundling?

Sony has bundled the last two Gran Turismo games. No doubt they were massive with GT3 garnering 14 million in sales and GT4 10 million.Bundled or not, both sold enviable numbers.

If the Halo: Reach bundle is still around for 2 years, then would you look at it's numbers in a different light? Would you say, "Well it sold 10 million because it was bundled!?"Would you discount the bundled sales because you cannot tell without asking each person who bought the bundle whether they bough it solely for the game or they purchased the console, while it happened to have the game?

How are we to know how much consumers want the game in of itself as opposed to the system which happens to be bundled with the game?

I am being repetitive, I know I have said this in a few other posts of mine recently. Yet, I am fascinated about how people talk about "mega franchises" as if every single one of those games was bought solely for the game, while forgetting or ignoring the fact the mega franchise had a history of being bundled for a prolonged period of over a year or two.

Well just one series.  And it was filled to the brim with licenses, without which it wouldn't have sold a tenth as much.

U mean if gt did not have so many licensed cars it would not be successful in my opinion u r totally wrong gt is not only famous for number of cars it is also famous 4 its quality and simulation and different types of races

If GT used purely fantasy cars (like Ridge Racer) and no licenses, it would be a niche series.  The appeal isn't just in the game design or simulation aspects, it's in the massive variety of real makes and models available.

well i am also saying about the real cars plus quality,simulation and different types of races :). Some people like rally,some like ordinary race some like to race with same car these were the features present in gt so different type of people play it who like different races and now with gt5 they have added nascar,go kart and japanese gt series so they have expanded their game giving different types of real races in one game not everybody play it due to simulation definitely there r different factors

Okay every time you use "I proved you wrong" in an arguement, I'm just going to return it on you. You have never proven me wrong, I actually proved you wrong because your original definition of a second party developer was basically a 3rd party developer that makes games excusivly for one console, which was wrong. You also said Sony coined the term, which was wrong.

Gears and Resistance are in the same boat. Yes Sony publishes Resistance, but MS puts a lot of advertizing and development funding into Gears as well. The ownerships of the IP is the only real difference. We both know Gears will never go multiplatform this generation. Insomniac is working on a multi-console game, so both Epic and Insomniac make multi-console games, both Gears and Resistance are developed by a 3rd party developer, both exclusive franchises are heavily funded by their respective console manufacturer company, etc etc.

Also technically, Gears is a second party game. They are under contract exclusive and heavily funded by MS. Now I know the term isn't used in the media, I'll say Gears is 3rd party, but thats not proving me wrong, thats helping clear up something I did not know (people not using the term 2nd party to officially clasify games).

Anyway I'm done debating too. All you say is essentially "I'm right and your wrong", but you can never prove anything. I don't think you have proven anything to me at all in this thread. Even the things we agree on I brought up because I do say good things about PS3 unlike some people with the 360.....