I'm not suggesting they would have "saved the Vita". I'm saying Sony's output was considerably higher last generation as it spanned two different consoles (three if you include the PS2, but most of those were PSP ports) and they still made more total games for the PS3. 

I only PROVIDED two examples, that isn't all that I could think of. Suggesting I couldn't come up with anymore because I didn't come up with a comprehensive list is a poor attempt at derailing my argument, no offense. Playstation started a legacy with the PS1. They carried over games like Wipeout, Syphon Filter, Medievil, Ape Escape, Gran Turismo and Twisted Metal to other generations. The PS2 brought God of War, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, MLB The Show, and Killzone to other generations. The PS3 established IP's like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and Infamous. All of these franchises carried through to multiple generations. Some of them Sony dropped, some of them they haven't. Some of them are at an unknown status. All of them are part of Playstations legacy and were a part of the brand. You are acting as if the brand or its games were not recognizable before this generation, which I don't think is true. 

I think most companies don't pay attention to opinion pieces like these (otherwise Nintendo would reduce their port prices). They pay attention to sales. Clearly what Sony is doing is working for them, and that is fantastic. The issue is that it isn't working for me. I miss the AA games they used to invest in. They have a large catalog of IP's (some listed above) that they can still utilize. But they aren't going to according to these new sources. For me, that's sad and frustrating. The AAA blockbuster games are not the only reason why I enjoy Playstation products. 

Also, Bloodborne was partially developed BY Sony Japan...so I don't see how closing that studio was good for that IP.  

I know you're not suggesting it would've saved the Vita, but I was giving an example of how a single beloved owning an iconic AAA IP is better than 10 forgettable AA games from a business point of view. Hypothetically, SONY would've had a much better chance selling games like gravity rush on the VITA if they secured the system success through a title like Monster hunter, be it first or third party. With that example in mind, you can see why I think SONY is heading in the right direction. You ought to have pillars, icons, mascots, aka a legacy that you can rely on and through which you can sell AA games. 

I wasn't derailing your argument, and your bigger list tells a similar story. PS1/PS2 era is full of forgettable SONY games that were nice to have, but never iconic. With the massive success these two systems had, SONY should've had more tiles along the lines of God of War and GT. Does that diminish their contributions to the gaming scene? No, it's just terrible business. SONY need to make brand-defining games before they overly indulge in developing AA games that apparently xbox fans like so much lol (not referring to you, I am actually replying to your posts because there is a genuine attempt at having a discussion here). 

Back to my point, if you compare the original Xbox to the PS2 in terms of original IPs that had lasting appeal, you'd realise that both SONY and MS have 1 each (Kratos/Halo). Which is, in a hindsight, problematic for SONY because the PS2 was a massive success, while Xbox was an objective failure. Even if you throw in Ratchet and Clank, the list remains very small. 

As for Bloodborne, we know the talent behind it wasn't Sony's Japan, why are we pretending otherwise? In fact, I just had a look at SONY's Japan output in the last 10 years, yup, a great decision that was, whoever made it. I think more money spent on new studios or securing third party games like Nier and Nioh was a much better investment strategy. 

I'm not suggesting they would have "saved the Vita". I'm saying Sony's output was considerably higher last generation as it spanned two different consoles (three if you include the PS2, but most of those were PSP ports) and they still made more total games for the PS3. 

I only PROVIDED two examples, that isn't all that I could think of. Suggesting I couldn't come up with anymore because I didn't come up with a comprehensive list is a poor attempt at derailing my argument, no offense. Playstation started a legacy with the PS1. They carried over games like Wipeout, Syphon Filter, Medievil, Ape Escape, Gran Turismo and Twisted Metal to other generations. The PS2 brought God of War, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, MLB The Show, and Killzone to other generations. The PS3 established IP's like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and Infamous. All of these franchises carried through to multiple generations. Some of them Sony dropped, some of them they haven't. Some of them are at an unknown status. All of them are part of Playstations legacy and were a part of the brand. You are acting as if the brand or its games were not recognizable before this generation, which I don't think is true. 

I think most companies don't pay attention to opinion pieces like these (otherwise Nintendo would reduce their port prices). They pay attention to sales. Clearly what Sony is doing is working for them, and that is fantastic. The issue is that it isn't working for me. I miss the AA games they used to invest in. They have a large catalog of IP's (some listed above) that they can still utilize. But they aren't going to according to these new sources. For me, that's sad and frustrating. The AAA blockbuster games are not the only reason why I enjoy Playstation products. 

Also, Bloodborne was partially developed BY Sony Japan...so I don't see how closing that studio was good for that IP.  

I know you're not suggesting it would've saved the Vita, but I was giving an example of how a single beloved owning an iconic AAA IP is better than 10 forgettable AA games from a business point of view. Hypothetically, SONY would've had a much better chance selling games like gravity rush on the VITA if they secured the system success through a title like Monster hunter, be it first or third party. With that example in mind, you can see why I think SONY is heading in the right direction. You ought to have pillars, icons, mascots, aka a legacy that you can rely on and through which you can sell AA games. 

I wasn't derailing your argument, and your bigger list tells a similar story. PS1/PS2 era is full of forgettable SONY games that were nice to have, but never iconic. With the massive success these two systems had, SONY should've had more tiles along the lines of God of War and GT. Does that diminish their contributions to the gaming scene? No, it's just terrible business. SONY need to make brand-defining games before they overly indulge in developing AA games that apparently xbox fans like so much lol (not referring to you, I am actually replying to your posts because there is a genuine attempt at having a discussion here). 

Back to my point, if you compare the original Xbox to the PS2 in terms of original IPs that had lasting appeal, you'd realise that both SONY and MS have 1 each (Kratos/Halo). Which is, in a hindsight, problematic for SONY because the PS2 was a massive success, while Xbox was an objective failure. Even if you throw in Ratchet and Clank, the list remains very small. 

As for Bloodborne, we know the talent behind it wasn't Sony's Japan, why are we pretending otherwise? In fact, I just had a look at SONY's Japan output in the last 10 years, yup, a great decision that was, whoever made it. I think more money spent on new studios or securing third party games like Nier and Nioh was a much better investment strategy. 

Bold 1: Yes, from a business point of view, but remember I'm not arguing from a business point of view. I identify that they've been very successful recently. Whether that is because of the AAA focus or just overall great brand recognition I'm not sure, but they've been successful so I'm not surprised they are sticking with it. I'm essentially arguing from my point of view as a consumer and a Playstation fan. Playstation has always offered me a wide variety of exclusives to play. The PS4 is the first Playstation console I've owned where my best memories aren't with exclusives, but third party multiplatform games. If this is the direction they are taking the PS5 I don't think I'm going to buy one. 

Bold 2 and Bold 3: This is predicated on the assumption that the IP's which are not continuing did not have lasting appeal. I think this is an erroneous assumption because there are some games Sony simply stopped making despite the success (e.g. Resistance or Jak and Daxter). Could these games have had lasting appeal? Possibly, but we wont know until Sony gives it a shot. We've seen franchises that were once very unappealing after numerous entries (Tony Hawk, Crash Bandicoot) revamped to great success. We've also seen franchises that didn't perform terribly well initially come back with greater success (Shadow of the Colossus). Utilizing these older IP's for smaller budget titles would not stop them from emphasizing the AAA blockbusters and it would also allow them to gauge interest for these other IP's. Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

Bold 4: First off, I'm insulted about your remark of Sony Japan! Astrobot and Gravity Rush are some of my favorite new IP's from Sony in the last 10 years. Second, I think games like Nier and Nioh would have been made regardless of Sony's investment. I would prefer Sony to fund games that would not have been made without their influence/investment. 

And don't worry about the Xbox comment. I sold my Xbox One in 2017 for a new 3DS and never looked back. Still hoping Halo Infinite turns out good though. Also hoping that Sony develops a Sunset Overdrive sequel since they own the IP now, but with this news it makes it less likely. 

1 - It wouldn`t even be from the POV of customer, but of a single customer, you. Because considering the metacritic, user review, GOTY and sales they all increased a lot so for the customers that have been a very good thing considering they were hardly buying the smaller titles. Sure there will be some real customers and fans, like you and even me, that will miss on those titles, but looking at how much they sold I don`t think that is even a relevant number of people.

2 and 3 - Sure resurrecting old IPs could show good sales, but so could new IPs so that wouldn`t go one way or another. SotC is a great remake, but we have no numbers to suggest it made great success sales wise do we? From wikepedia Jak and Dexter with all entries (7) sold 15M, so about what a single entry of TLOU or UC is doing now. And yes for most of older titles from Sony I don`t think many are remembered by a lot today.

4 - Again you may be offended individually, but for the market itself gravity rush is neglible really and Astrobot is continuing is existence with Japan Studios even even renamed after it ( I guess there is no more team ICO).

And this isn`t a new, it is an opinion piece based on rumor took on a very bad twist. You had Astro`s Playroom and Sackboy Adventure on console release so if Sunset Overdrive sequel isn`t made is more likely due to the lack of success of the first entry than Sony forbidding their devs of making AA games.

Bold 1: I don't understand your distinction. I said it's my point of view as a consumer. I'm a consumer. Stating I'm just one consumer is obvious. Clearly I'm not twenty. I also said that they've been successful, so you're kind of repeating information here. 

Bold 2: Jak and Daxter sold as well as the Ratchet and Clank franchise at the time, and the latter ended up being a very successful franchise overall that is still getting new entries. 

Bold 3: This, again, is repetitive information. Of course I'm speaking from the point of view of myself. I don't see what you are looking for here. The following information is how much I love those IP's and how I am disappointed that the team behind those IP's is being reconfigured or outright disbanded. 

Overall, it seems we are arguing two separate points. You're arguing the benefits as a business, which I'm not arguing. I'm just saying that, if this news is true, I don't think the Playstation platform is going to be for me anymore. I'll stick with my PC and Switch instead.