:(  I want cookies! I only asked if anyone wanted a cookie to be nice, if i had some, i wouldn't share.

FF is nt ublished by SONY it iwas Squaresoft and now Square Enix but other games that have soild big are GTA3 and GTA VC, GTA SA.

I wasn't responding to "exlcusives" though, I was responding to 1st party portfolios.  Ergo, Gears 1-2, ME1, Heavy Rain and Alan Wake would all count, MGS4 wouldn't.   Games don't need to be "owned" to be 1st party.  They can most certainly be "licensed" or "sublicensed" like Gears or MLB are.  Or Crash was.  Or Enemy Zero.  Or....

I agree with the general point in that MGS4 is perfectly applicable in an "exclusives" discourse.

FF7 was published by sony, like Crash they don't own the series, but they published the games. The only sony owned IP to go over 5 million is Gran Turismo.

I stated an opinion, yes, but I mostly call it as it happens.  Lots and lots of customers come into the store ask for a game system and titles made by that company that makes very POPULAR and FUN games for that game system; exp..  Wii and Nintendos' astablished franchises.  Xbox 360 system and Microsofts' franchises (with a few other FPS). They purchase Sonys' system and different 3rd party titles.  I dont see customers plucking down almost $400 for the PS3 and any particular Sony made titles.  What dose "outside of Halo, do Microsoft's games "SUCK" aswell?  Have to do with your question, "Why Sony games barley reach 3 million to 5 million sales."

At first, no. I skip most posts in threads like these. They bring out an element of the board I do not normally waste my time on. Having gone back and read them I see no relevance in relation to my post. I suggest you read them again and pay attention to my exact phrasing. The words and phrases were chosen very carefully, and for very specific reasons. The heart of the discussion is about what consumers feel is the best product for their money. Trying to eliminate that from the discussion is the same as trying to eliminate the discussion.

You reply to people attempting to disrupt the thread, but skip over my post. I am curious what you, and others with a more pro-Sony lead have to say about my interpretation of the events. Any thoughts on it? Or is it just gibberish?

You might have read them but I actually think his posts linked in the OP were relevant to your post.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3067384&page=11&postnum=2

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3067779&page=13&postnum=5

His basic premise is flawed though. I can think of only a very small number of publishers or console makers (past and present) that have a different focus at all from Sony. The concept that they alone want a large and diverse library of million sellers is, quite frankly, absurd. Firstly because it assumes the two goals are mutually exclusive. Secondly because it assumes Sony would not like to accomplish both goals at once. Capcom, Nintendo, EA, Activision, Sega, Square-Enix (post Eidos buy out more so), Tecmo, Konami, Atlus, THQ, and more all have a very very wide range of games they sell that are multi-million sellers. Some of them own the top game in multiple, and very different genres.

Fair to say. I can't imagine there is a company that would be upset with having "only" 2 - 4 million copies sold for many of their games, heh. Thanks for the reply though. I am unsure of the Gran Turismo bit though. It seems equally likely that it has managed to define the genre, or it has managed to get a broad base appeal. Perhaps it is just both.