Really?  Up to 2005 I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but their decision making since then has seemed pretty terrible.

They have competition from Turn 10 now, who make games quicker, better and on more relevant platforms too.

XB1's relevant?  Since when?  Heck, even the 360 isn't exactly bangin' anymore.  FH2 even though it scored well, hasn't exactly lit up the charts either.  You think given another year, FH2 will have sold more on 360/XB1, than GT6 did on one 'less relevant' platform?

I was referring to the fact that in 2013, Turn 10 managed to make a Forza for XB1, while Polyphony made Gran Turismo for PS3.

One of those platforms was relevant to the company who made it going forward, as it had another 6-8 years left of life in it, and the other wasn't, having just reached the 7th year of probably a 10 year lifespan.

If you're seriously going to tell me that Polyphony taking 3 years to make Gran Turismo 6 on the PS3 was a good choice, then I don't really have anything left to say in this conversation, since I could not disagree more.

How would you know, what's relevant to either company?  Do you work for them?  Did Sony suddenly stop making games for the PS3, because it occurs to me that both the PS3 and 360 are still having games made for them.

It might not have moved a lot of hardware, but I imagine it moved some. Different types of games sell systems for people who like those games. 

A lot of people blame mobile competition, but I think that's a very small reason.  Sony themselves have blamed mobile competition.  

If you look at the 3DS, when it started out it wasn't doing very well.  250$ and at the time, it only had a couple of major titles.  It was just difficult for a lot of people to justify spending so much money when only a few games were quite widespread.  A price cut and a few more major titles and the 3DS is doing much better, it won't do better than the DS.  

The DS was a big success for quite a few reasons I think.  It launched at $149, at that price a few games is pretty easy to justify spending that money.  And maybe just maybe, it got some help by the Wii and also helped that the DS was something new itself.  

I'm not sure how much Sony really realizes about the Vita.  They seem content with blaming mobile. The competition is too great to justify spending much money to support the Vita, is what they think.  

I think the reality is that it is hard to justify buying a Vita for the vast majority of people.  It's spent much of it's life at 249$ and now 199$ which is great for some, but for most it is far more than they can justify spending on the library.  That does include a small memory card, so it's not all bad.  

The problem with the library is that there is little that is appealing to most people.  Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, LittleBigPlanet, Persona 4, Minecraft, Need for Speed, Final Fantasy X, Killzone and Tearaway are the 10 biggest games on the system. 

Uncharted is great, but most people prefer it on a big screen (and made by Naughty Dog).  

Assassin's Creed (70 metacritic) Call of Duty was poorly made.  (33 metacritic)

LBP, is probably dying.  Persona 4 is always a poor seller.  Minecraft has already sold millions upon millions of copies.  

Some of these would likely do much much better if there was a big push for marketing.  

What I would do if I was Sony would be to pricecut the Vita down to 149$ or cheaper.  Release a Gran Turismo game and bundle it with the Vita with a pretty big marketing push.  Release a Grand Theft Auto game exclusive for Vita with a bundle and marketing push.  Do the same with a good Call of Duty game.