It's not a fact, more of an opinion. I agree with Osama. Playstation is my favorite console at the moment because of the variety and number of exclusives Sony offers. I could care less if inFamous sold 1m or 3m. I enjoyed it as a gamer. No sequel because of sales? Well that's fine then , bring on the next IP. No harm to me. Sony goes out? Fine I have Nintendo and PC gaming to fall back on. And 20 years from now? It would probably be something completely different.

I think people get a little too carried away with company loyalty. Theres nothing wrong with having a favorite, everyone does, but to worry more about them pocketing billions than to establishing new teams, jobs, ip's,...; than to focus on reality that you are just a consumer that should be making the best out of an "investment", is wrong imo. I like Sony, i wish them the best, I want them to keep going, but if they go out, I'll adjust my gaming preferences as I've said.

Gee, it has nothing to do with company loyalty. It's business sense.

It's been said before:

How can a company produce games if it does not return a profit. If you really like games, then you like Video Game profit.

Or, put it this way:

What would happen if all video game companies behaved like Sony? That's right, 0 games after all of them go bankrupt.

I guess all my years of gaming, I've never really liked games then.

Sure, but the fallacy is that such case does not exist, hence my post.

To discourage the criticism is to encourage the bad tendency. If you really care about games, encourage business sense. Without money one can make no games.

True. If they follow Microsoft it wont be a good day for gaming.

Well no one is saying put out as few exclusives as Microsoft did this year.  As an Xbox owner, I wish there were more, but then again most of mine at 3rd party anyway.  But Sony has to cut back a SOME.  Microsoft could easily afford to make more too.  But then again keep in mind all of their Kinect exclusives.   We don't count those, but they do.

Again,

The reason Sony consoles have always done well is variety in games. Games sell consoles right? Well having multitudes of games is how Sony has sold consoles. If you want the big flashy numbers that is great but ultimately that isn't what made Microsoft successful. Halo was on the first Xbox after all and that didn't stop it from being an ultimately abortion of a console.

It was a tremendous amount of third party support that Sony lost that shifted the paradigm in the favor of Microsoft. Which gave Microsoft and their weak lineup am multitude of variety in their titles.

Sony needs to continue making a wide range of titles but specifically focus their marketing efforts on the cream of the crop and let word of mouth effect their weaker titles. Killzone was an awesome game and I loved the multi-player but in retrospect they should have made it easier for the general public.

That isn't the sole reason they have done well.  Even tebow sees that.  I mean, Nintendo sold more and had the fewest games.  Microsoft sold just as much with fewer.  Sony has sold consoles because of technology I think.  The PS1 changed things completely.  The PS2 was a DVD player for millions.  The PS3 was a cheap blu-ray option for years.  I wouldn't even say games is the number one reason people buy a PS3.  Every single one of my friends who own a PS3 bought one because of the blu-ray player. 

With the majority of games being 3rd party now, and Sony having games of a similar genre competing against eachother, they only hurt themselves.  Clearly no one is buying a PS3 because they have exclusives that barely crack 1 mill.  Otherwise they would sell more!  Most of the people playing on a PS3 are playing multiplats anyway.  And others bought a PS3 because of their BIG name titles like Gran Turismo and Metal Gear.  And those were already well established.  Their only big success just for a PS3 is Uncharted.  I'm not sure how many people would buy a PS3 JUST for Uncharted though, but it is probably worth it to some consumers what with the great reviews.

You're right, they should focus their marketing on the cream of the crop, but they also need to cut the cord on the ones that don't sell well with or without marketing that they take a loss on.  Forget it with the sequels.  And keep in mind, they don't have money to spend.  Which means cuts have to come from somewhere, or they will just cut gaming out altogether. 

Microsoft cannot afford to make more games on par as Sony unless they artistically are involved (which they aren't) like Sony. They have had too many failures in first party in the last ten years and cannot risk anymore. Sony needs to leave more budget dollars for marketing but their library quality is great. Sony used to enjoy lofty sales last gen because the 360 fanbase and PS3 are virtually similar. They were mostly the PS2 owners.

They could do a bit better market research and adjust the budget more realistically. No need to cut back on nr of games. I don't want xbla, psn, etc to be the only source of variety and all big budget games to be targeted at the widest possible audience.

Apart from motorstorm apocalypse, whose release was completely messed up beyond Sony's control, most exclusives had around a million or more sales. Why is that not good enough anymore?