If you go back to the 360 era, it was crazy to think Sony would ever get back on top. MS had nothing but major hits on their hands. It was the console to use if you enjoyed online play having all the major online games at the time. Halo, Gears, COD, etc. Xbox Live was the gold standard for multiplayer at this time, and have options like click to join game well before other services like steam incorporated it.I don't disagree with the purchase, like I already said, it was inevitable since MS cannot grow or raise a new studio that can produce great AAA games as proven by the last almost 10 years, but Sony can. So MS because of it's ineptitude, but also because of it's big bucks, buys them already established, by the dozen. That's one way of trying to fix their problem...
In e perfect world only we, the users would win and we would have every game on every platform at the lowest cost, but we don't live in that world so these exclusives / platform are a necessary evil, so I accept them.
What I want is irrelevant (for Sony to have as many studios as MS has), but what is relevant is that Sony with it's 14 studios (those are 1st party only + some few 2nd party) has already proven they can produce at least a dozen great games in 1 generation, MS proved nothing yet and we still have only promises and hopes, even now. So until MS actually scores with the 1st new AAA game, it's all hopes and dreams.
MS has 23 or 24 studios now (rumored to be buying more) and Sony 14 (plus 2nd party ones). It may look like an advantage for MS, but it's no advantage if they don't make more great games or as least as many as Sony does...
It's not about the quantity, but the quality and Sony proved they know how to chose talented studios which some of them release hit after hit after hit.
The same story is being told since PS1, that Sony is too little to last vs the giants, or they will fail, etc. Did not happen and won't happen.
Like AMD, Sony is proving (to everyone else) that just throwing money at the problem is not the best/only answer, you also need smarts and I'm not talking normal levels, but super-smarts. So they make very smart investments and decisions and the last x number of years proved it works.
Also here is a question for everyone: unless you own stock in those companies (just for the record I don't own any stock in anything), why would you want the big players to roflstomp the smaller ones? Why would someone want MS, or Apple, or Google, or Facebook to destroy everyone else and they alone to dominate in their field?
I will never side with the big guys, there are many more negatives of them winning than Sony, or Nintendo, or AMD (vs Intel and nvidia for that matter) winning.
PS3 at this point in time lacked features, most 3rd party games looked and/or ran worse on the PS3. The controller's analog sticks are still known for the horrid deadzone. It really was a failure for Sony, and the system only really caught on near the end of the life cycle. Mostly in Europe. As a early PS3 owner I remember having to quit games just to read a message.
Times change. We already know what MS did to screw over their market share. If you don't think anything is going to come out of MS spending this kind of money you'd be wrong. During the 360 era MS didn't want much to do with the xbox division. Other than a handful of games the MS game studios were not well funded, and poor management kept pulling them in different directions. Kinect enforcement pretty much accounted for nearly half a decade of crap/games that never saw daylight. 3 years from now I'd expect a pretty heathy lineup of upcomming games from MS studios in full force.
Sony has had really great release pacing with AAA games over the last decade. It played heavily into the success of PS4.