ModNation racers sound exactly like what I feel is a perfect development strategy for Sony. The game has a lot of content given that it follows LBPs model of user generated content and its a game which is cheap to develop with a high potential return because it maximises its potential sales. 

Uncharted 2 is a great game and the online modes sound good although I have yet to try them. Im traditional in that I like to complete single player a couple of times before trying out online. However one thing I must say about Uncharted 1/2 is that I wonder if the cinematic approach lets them down by ratcheting up the required development expense whilst at the same time requiring them to ratchet down the difficulty level because the moment the player dies the immersion is lost. I feel that Uncharted 2 leaves a lot of potential for future developments in Uncharted 3. 

Uncharted 2 is a great game but I wonder if and other cinematic type games are missing one final piece of the puzzle aside from local play. I feel the AI directer in Left 4 Dead 1/2 is this final piece. If the player can be confronted with an appropriate level of resistance at all times then it removes the final problem which uncaps the series sales potential. I think Uncharted 3 shouldn't have a difficulty slider, I think it should have an intensity slider and the player should almost never lose and never more than twice in the same area. 

My frustration here which I didn't want to express in my original post is that many of these games are sorely missed but I can never play them so I cannot justify keeping them. Infamous was probably the sorest point for me as its a game which calls out for cooperative gameplay and the story itself seems to allow for additional heroes into the mix. I hope that for part two they can fix this as my wife is also a big fan of the game and you wouldn't believe the backseat gaming she does!

Sony is and always has been about pushing the envelope. they are always trying to create new games with new ideas. but the fact is that most people fear new because it means change. if they can't get that exact same experience with a "sequal" or new title as they did with the other game the company sold then they don't like it. take activision's sales tactis. infinity had to plead and plead to be able to make Modern warfare. if it was up to activision COD4 would've been another WW2 game. and even after the great reception of MW what did they do for DOD5? Right back to good 'ol safe WW2 shooter. look at what bungee is doing with Halo. are you serious? ODST sold 2mil copies in one day not because it is a great game(5hour campaign and only a few new maps) but because it is safe. and when reach comes out they'll gobble it up again. call me a fanboy if you want but I prefer quality over quantity. if another game system comes along with bigger badder games then ps3 and UC2 and KZ2 then I'll buy that. until then Sony has the big hitters and will continue with GOW3 and MAG right out of the gate to start 2010.

You're a fanboy, particularly if you cannot see the quality in the Halo franchise.

Offline and online modes didn't stop Crash Bandicoot from selling back in the day.

Online modes didn't even exist then. I'm not sure how that's a valid point, please explain.

This, add on the fact that going into a new Gen, SONY likes to rely on new IP's. 

Correct. It's excellent for us, the problem is you only see big numbers with this strategy when the system itself has a huge install base. And even then, you hardly ever see games that sell on Gears of War levels.

Sony still trying to find a high selling popular new franchise to follow in the foosteps of Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo and Metal Gear Solid. Still waiting for it to happen. Uncharted seems good but not astonishingly high sales. Little Big Planet sold well but not huge sales numbers.
Gears of War series has been the stand out high selling franchise discovered this generation on HD consoles. Wii has any game with Wii in its name that sells high numbers this generation. Sony is still trying to find the magical formula on the PS3 this generation.
PS3 relies heavily on its past success of PS1/PS2 and sequels of old popular titles to sell console systems.

lol, does the TC want to be plagued with nothing but online shooters? If you ask me, sony already has enough online games under their belt, they dont need to develop any more. One can't keep up with the multiplayer of so many games.

I think th emain problem with this discussion, that CGI and myself were trying to understand is that if the OP makes a point as to why games seem to sell less on the playstation exclusively or arent selling like the highest selling this gen there needs to be some sense of what the benchmark is.

Once we understand what the benchmark is, which we assumed was this gens exclusives, which was apprently shot down since we werent supposed to bring up the 360 th epoint gets muddled.

For something to "disappoint" there must be an expectation attached. I linked to the highest selling games of the PS2 era, 25 of which sold over 4 million. It seems the point has gotten muddled and proven to be moot base don th enumbers CGI and I have pointed out in comparisons to overal exclusive sales.

On the whole its non existent and i see no correlation to online or co-op capabilities. The sales of this or any generation trend towards franchise names that swallow gamers whole.

When a game sells 1-2 million it should be considered a success, when someone says it should be selling 4 million we need to know WHY, we assumed it was because there are 360 games selling 4 million....well, we have halo, duh, and gears (congrats a breakthrough new IP) If we take Halo and Gears as the standard benchmark very few if any will live up to it in terms of sales, if we take a look at past generation 2-3 million is a resounding success and 1-2 million is a complete success, this is where i dont understand how these expectations were created.

So to point to 1-2 million sellers and saying they should be selling 3-4 million is kind of an impossibly high expectation and i really dont see how online functionality is THE deciding factor in sales bumps as including multiplayer doesnt correlate or create a linear upward trend in sales if we look at games that have begun as single player, GTA, RE, MGS and included multiplayer in later iterations it doesnt increase its sales.

It might not be fair to compare the games since they are spin-offs and not canon titles, but Crash Bash and CTR, which had MP (I said offline as well), didn't sell as much as the main iterations back then.

FF sells without online modes. MGS3: Subsistence, which had an online component, sold less than the original iteration.

I do realize though the flaws in this argument, main one being that I'm comparing previous generations to this one, which is far more online centric. But still, I do strongly believe it's not all about having an online mode to sell a game.

Games that may or may not prove this are Alan Wake and Heavy Rain.