Slightly fanboyish article. But I do admire sony's effort... it's not easy running 3 consoles which aren't doing too well against its competitors (well maybe not ps2 but its sales are dying). I hope they start to make some good money soon.

Working hardest - i don't know, except since Sony is financially doing badly, they'd better work their asses off to keep their jobs.

Other than that, it's really hard to see anyone working harder than others. Nintendo has to market their products to new customers, need to meet demand, put new games out, reconfigure the games to WM+, have DSiWare working.
Sony needs to cut costs, get games out, get hardware to consumers, reconstructure their studios.
M$ needs to get the games out, get rid of the hardware failures, try to kill every advantage the competition has.

fail. Up until Sony started losing huge amounts of money, they were the cockiest electronics company out there. I seem to remember them saying that people will buy the PS3 because they are Sony.

It's definately written from an american. Nintendo might not advertise very much in Americe, because there might still be shops without enough supply. And it doesn't make sense to advertise for an unavailable product. However, they advertise pretty much in europe. It's funny, that they still use WiiSports for their adverts. But I think they try to get more new gamers with their adverts, so it makes sense.

Isn't this the guy who wrote that crappy article about M$ losing money while Sony's revenue increased? This guy should find a new hobby.

Aside from advertising/marketing, they probably are working harder than MS and Nintendo. But all we can do is guess, none of us really know for sure.

Yeah, your post is fanboyism. I'll discount the Nintendo bit because it's not worth discussing.

Haven't you noticed MS's trend? They don't "buy" exclusives, they fucking pay a quality developer to create a title. How is that different than a "first party title"? If anything, I give them a bit of credit for creating a new model how to run this business. Thus far, it's worked pretty well. As MS closes their first party houses (or lets them go, eg. Bungie), they decided to start paying for third party developers to work for them.

That has to be a cheaper alternative than housing a development team. Instead of paying a full-time staff 12 months a year, you offer up a few million bucks to make sure their staff is paid and then publish the title.

Yeah, MS paid money to companies like Rockstar (actually, they just loaned them the money IIRC) but you can't argue the rewards they've received with their attitude toward Rockstar, Bethesda, and others. Instead of using the "Sony" method of funding developers, they're downsizing and using their resources to draw in third party devs who need the money.

If you don't like it and you're a Sony fan, I think you need a history check.

Sony working hardest? Lol.

The R+D on the Wiimote, balance board and motion plus alone is much more work than adding a Blu-ray drive. That's without taking into account the totally new software that had to accompany it.

Taking two years to get Home working, laziness.

It's like writing an assignment the night before it's due (Sony), compared to Nintendo who did all the work months ago.

might be true, 3 consoles/handhelds currently being alive and 2 of them get alot of Firmware updates, they have huge First Party Studio's and theyre still working on alot of other things, MS might be higher then they are now if you take PC gaming and OS bussines into account, but console gaming only, I think either Sony or Ninty takes the lead

Actually, all three console manufacturers pay third party developers to create games for them primarily because its a more reliable way to get high quality games and it is lower risk relationship ... Nintendo and Sony tend to be much more quiet about their relationships with other companies though, after all how (before TMNT was announced) how many people knew Game Arts developed Super Smash Bros Brawl?

Why this type of relationship is more reliable is ... If Nintendo decided that they needed a really big FPS game to start off the next generation there are dozens of developers they could approach who have a long history of making good FPS games, and they could fund 2 or 3 projects to ensure that one of the games turned out well. In contrast, a company like Nintendo doesn't have much experience developing FPS titles and even their best studio's effort might turn out to be a very polished game that doesn't hit the mark of what FPS players want ...

The lower risk part is easy to explain ... After you complete a project that turns out awful and doesn't sell well you don't have to continue funding the developer to produce more projects, or to eat the loss of starting up (or buying) the developer.