I do enjoy seeing a headline that has the word "Patcher" in it.
It's like listening to Paris Hilton talking about politics. A load of bollocks but they totally believe what they say.

I agree with most of you guys. I think a lot of gears success has to do with it's exclusive deal with MS and the support it got from MS. As an exclusive it found a really nice community with the 360 userbase. If it was a multiplat it might have lost some of that support. I think Bioshock 2 might feel some of that when it is released. Because the overall user base is now much larger for not only both but just the 360 alone, it has a chance to see better sales than Bioshock 1 but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't even reach that level. It feels lost and not nearly as special as the critically acclaimed  exclusive (at the time)Bioshock 1 did. Also the first gears of war came out a few weeks before the PS3 was even released. I don't think there was much of a chance of it getting good sales on the PS3. 

I think a big reason why Sony let the Heavy Rain IP go is not necessarily because it's a niche title but because they feel there is not much value in a sequel for it or the characters of the game. If there is no value for a sequel or the characters then there is not much value in retaining the IP. There could of course be a spiritual successor with a completely new story and such, but even then the Heavy Rain IP wouldn't mean anything. However if the Heavy Rain name takes off it could become a franchise like Final Fantasy which has a completely unrelated story and characters every time. But I don't see that happening. 

why what Pachter says everyone should be cared about it he is an ordinary analyst that say somthing to create a fuss

As I said before, PS3 exclusives hardly does that, and Gears sold well because it was heavily marketed and advertised by Microsoft (bundles, 30 minutes programs, advertisings etc etc).

To the bolded: This could equally be the other way round. Would 360 be where it is today without Gears of War? It was the no.1 game of the gen in terms of graphics and gameplay for a long while and it was Epic that showed Microsoft what could be acheived if they doubled the RAM on the 360 and convinced MS to up it from 256 to 512.

OT: Lol. Business-wise some at Epic might feel some regret, but I think they're quite happy with their position. Unreal Engine is powering most HD games and Gears franchise has sold 11 million.

You reckon Patcher knows that he gets flamed at EVERY single time he makes these stupid claims and opinions of his?

I'm assuming that each title could do approx 1.5 Million each on reputation and proven gameplay.  If Gears and Gears 2 were hypothetically to appear on PS3 they would essentially have free marketing and wareness courtesy of MS, plus they would look and play terrific.  Of course, PS3 fans might well go the Bioshock route and reject the game, possibly in punishment for it being withheld initially.  However looking at MW2, KZ2, etc. it seems that a decent action title like R2 can do around 1.5M with better titles clearing 2M and the big franchises easyily topping 3M.

So unless Gears titles were rejected I don't see why they wouldn't each do around 1.5 total for 3M across both games - which would be a nice profit as presumerably, judging by UT3's decent enough performance on PS3, it wouldn't cost that much too port them across as they are on an open engine already running on PS3 (although I assume Epic optimized it for 360) rather than a whole heap of code built from the ground up for 360.

It's all assumptions anyway as so far as I know MS have Gears contractually sewn up.

This goes for every franchise, and with that reasoning not a single console should have exclusives besides first party games. And in that case there would be hradly a point in owning two consoles so there would be a bloody battle and one of the two HD console makers would lose and the other one would be near bankrupt. Then the last surviving console maker has a monopoly on HD games and charges 90 dollar for each game. It's a good thing that there are multible consoles competing for the same price otherwise they wouldn't push themselves to deliver so much and it would be a boring generation.

Is Gears of War even possible on PS3? I know it's just an UE3 game, but they said that the 360 had 512mb of RAM specifically because of this game. I don't know how much is used for the gpu/cpu split in the 360, but the 360 also has that 10mb of EDRAM for the GPU. With the PS3 having a dedicated 256mb for CPU and 256mb for GPU, I wonder if Gears is even possible on that set limit.

Sure, it probably is, if they reworked it enough. But at the end of the day, there's no need to. Why waste more time and money when you are making plenty with a single platform and still have more free time for other projects this way?

All Pachter is saying is that epic wont like being locked into supporting just the 360, when the PS3-slim has really been a game changer and that it makes a lot more sense to support the PS3 now. That's it and the idea that the PS3 would get more attention from developers is only obvious given its sales lately.