The Playstation and PS2 had stronger lineups because they were the most popular consoles in every region by a wide margin ... Hypothetically speaking, if the PS3 is far behind the other consoles after the christmas 2007 season you will see few exclusive games being announced for the PS3 that are not being produced by Sony (or a second party)

Staticneuron you completely missed my point. Basically its this. If Sony doesn't have the best third party support they are screwed. Sony can't carry the Playstation brand by themselves. My killer app argument is dead on. Killer apps push system sales. Higher systems sales allow for a company to maintain or increase their third party support. Sony won't get much if any returns on their internal games without key exclusives pushing PS3 hardware sales.

i think you are confused. crash and spyro were sucessful on ps1; they didn't start to falter until they went multiplatform under vivendi-universal (and stopped being deveoped by naughty dog and insomniac, respectively). plus, which two bankable franchises are you referring to? i can think of at least five CURRENT ones (not to mention older ones like crash, twisted metal or syphon filter): jak and daxter, ratchet and clank, god of war, SOCOM, and gran turismo. at least try to be objective.

Nice to see January Sales are gonna be WAAY higher than last year. Might be the PS3 selling 400,000. (haha I wish) Sony has games coming soon. Sony is releaseing at least 4 games I want a quarter. Starting in March. (at LEAST4) And so far I look good untill mid 2008. The Wii will get 1 in spring, and I think 1 in summer, and possibly 2 or 3 for holiday. I say the PS3 is killing the Wii on First and 3rd party games. (that are coming) Some are multiplatform. But the 360 dosent have much penetration. And it dont have the Sony Name. (I've never gotten anything from sony I felt was junk... Always Really nice... Just Really expensive) I could list off about 8 things from microsoft that are junk. DOS, Win3.1, 95, 98, ME, Vista... X-box, Original X-Box controller, New X-Box controller, X-box 360's backward compability... I could just go on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and OMFG. on about how microsoft provides junk. The Wii as many of you say dosent compete with the PS3. Exactly. That means the PS3 dont compete with the Wii. That is why the PS3 will beat down the 360. And then once it's beaten down, PS3 will get all the exclusive 3rd party games. wich will then beat the Wii down. (late 2008 or 2009)

Sony spent a lot of money promoting two franchises they didn't own. Crash and Spyro are NOT Sony IPs. So they can't be considered as bankable franchises for Sony. As for the franchises I was referring to, Gran Turismo and God of War. If a GT or GoW came out for PS3 tomorrow, the PS3 would be as hard to find as the Wii. Twisted Metal, Syphon Filter, Jax and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, and SOCOM aren't the type of games that will make consumers run out and buy the PS3 tomorrow at its current price. Twisted Metal and Syphon Filter don't have the pull they had during the PS1 era. Both Ratchet & Clank and Jax & Daxter have suffered from Tony Hawk syndrome. By that I mean they have received a high number of sequels in a relatively short amount of time. This marginalizes the power of the IPs. SOCOM has suffered the same fate and while the first two SOCOMs sold quite well, SOCOM III has sold about a third of what SOCOM1 did and less than half of what SOCOM 2 did. SOCOM: Combine Assault is still pretty new, so it may yet reinvigorate the series. I can't give Sony credit for the first party prowess they lack. They have done an excellent job of garnering third party support for the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 and PSP had the same initial support as the PS2 but both systems seem to have eroding support. Particularly the PSP. The PS3's support is shifting away from exclusives and towards multiplatform support. That trend favors Microsoft since they have the install base advantage over Sony.

First party and second party devs count right? We are talking about what sony has under thier belt. Sony does not own spyro and crash but insomniac and naughty dog do. Sony ws not blindly throwing money at these companies. What I think you might do is look up a list of sony's first party and second party devs and see what they have made in the past. Even if each developer "own's" thier own franchise chances are it would be brought to the PS line. So it benefits sony to put money forth to make these games made and to advertise them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_computer_and_video_games#PlayStation_2 Seriously though, look at this list and single out sony's first and second party devs. Compare the resulting numbers to the xbox or the GC. I assure you Sony is doing well in the gaming department.

I just thought of this. the Original Atari has better games than the Wii and PS3 right now... Go buy it! And play that for fun games! If you want graphics Buy a PS3. If you want point/shoot fun. Get a NES with duckhunt. ;) sorry... comic spree.

Crash was created by Naughty Dog. Spyro was created by Insomniac. They are both owned by Universal Studios. Similar to how several of the Kong characters in the Donkey Kong franchise and Krystal from Star Fox Adventures were created by RARE but the characters are owned by Nintendo. Neither Naughty Dog nor Insomnia have had anything to do with the Crash and Spyro series since they went multiplatform. Of the 65 games you linked me to at Wikipedia, 6 are owned by Sony. SOCOM, ATV Offroad Fury, Gran Turismo, God of War, Jax & Daxter, and Ratchet & Clank.

You forgot the Getaway You have your info a little mixed up. Traveller's Tales , who ported crash, is owned by universal. Naughty Dog is owned by sony and Insomniac is independant but many consider them second party developers (for sony). Bankable franchises that each company can get on a console are really thanks to first and second party devs. Whether or not each company owns the IP. Would you say that Killer instinct was a bankable franchise for nintendo? Yep, it was. It may not be that way anymore but now you add that bankable franchise to the 360 prospects. Im going to bring this back to the original point you brought up! Which console provides varied content without relying on third party devs? Sony, microsoft and nintendo have all created games that fit in different genre's but ALL of them still rely on third party devs to help cover all the bases. And what you are still not getting is Sony choses not to model their systems around killer apps. Whether it be third party or first party. I mean Gran turismo is a pretty tough act to follow. Twisted metal, Cool boarders, NFL GameDay 99, jet moto, Gran turismo, Jax & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, God of War, Socom, The getaway (arc the lad?) and a few others are internal sony franchises and has made it to the million seller list. I pointed those out as extremes. Games do not need to sell a million to make profits. And it should be noted that alot of PS games sell well. Second party devs should not be ignored here as well. What is the difference between a third party and a second party dev? Second party devs (even though they won't call themselves that) are independant but has primarily developed for one company or console line. Sorta like how Camelot Software Planning has made games for sega and sony systems but are now considered second part to nintendo (golden sun, mario tennis, mario golf). Second party devs ecome more noticable when companies like MS or Sony start throwing money into their projects. How noticible are second party devs? Well you yourself mention ATV Offroad Fury as a sony franchise. But it isn't made by sony it is made by a second part dev rainbow studios. Rainbow studio's are owned by THQ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_2-only_games http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:PlayStation_2-only_games&from=MS+Saga%3A+A+New+Dawn These two pages are what people expect from the PS2. Titles That may have never spawned sequels but either sold well or were cult hits. With the established history of the PS and the PS2 line I really do not believe "killer apps" are needed because killer apps wins converts while the PS line has set up its Fanbase. I love Okami whether it sells 1 million copies or ten and I am pretty sure the large PS and PS2 base feels the same. "Harrison would not comment on the Killzone speculation, but dismissed the idea that Sony had to focus its planning to counteract Halo 3. "I have a great deal of respect for Halo, I think it's a great piece of software, but it's one title," Harrison said. "I think that it's very dangerous to build an entire brand personality or platform around a single title. At PlayStation what we have done successfully... is to create tremendously varied entertainment opportunities on our platforms that cover a lot of different bases, a lot of different game styles and as a result grow the market for a lot of different users. We've been very successful doing that. We'll continue to do that. And we would be very careless if we were to focus on one specific title."" Face it Harrison is right. The halo franchise didn't sell as much as the Gran turismo franchise on the PS2 and the amount of the remaining PS2 franchises trumps the most successful xbox games. The top selling list for the 360 shows 9 titles. It surpasses the original xbox by 3 but 4 of those franchises are heading to the PS3. Killer apps are not the way to win a console war, they are just medals awarded on the battlefield.

Yeah who needs a fully working game with hours of single player gameplay and hours of multiplayer gameplay when you can have a tiny demo?