This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

No it's an opinion.

Lol, not it really isn't. Nintendo definitely doesn't give their developers creative freedom since we're still getting Zelda and Mario, and tons and tons of Mario verse games. Same with Microsoft, the Gears team was making a new IP, nope, Gears. Halo team still making Halo, Lion Head was still making Fable. 

Sony is always giving their developers freedom. 

If Sony was either Nintendo or Microsoft, Sucker Punch would still be making Sly Cooper, but nope, they made inFamous and now again, they're working on a new IP.

Sony Japan is always making new IPs.

Naughty Dog with Crash -> Jak -> Uncharted -> Last of Us

Bend would be making Syphon Filter, nope new IP.

Santa Monica was given freedom to make a new IP, even though it didn't work, they still tried. 

Media Molecule with LBP -> Tearaway -> Dreams. 

Guerilla with Killzone to Horizon. 

Even with their second party like Insomniac with Spyro -> Ratchet -> Resistance, and Level 5 and more.

I can go on, even their yearly studio, MLB Team is given some sort of freedom with finding new games to help produce like ModNation Racers and a bunch of others. And same with Poly, they've made a couple of non 

Lmao, please. It's a fact.

EDIT: Lol Sony has the most IPs, so I'm not even sure why I bothered with the whole list.

Lol, not it really isn't. Nintendo definitely doesn't give their developers creative freedom since we're still getting Zelda and Mario, and tons and tons of Mario verse games. Same with Microsoft, the Gears team was making a new IP, nope, Gears. Halo team still making Halo, Lion Head was still making Fable. 

Sony is always giving their developers freedom. 

If Sony was either Nintendo or Microsoft, Sucker Punch would still be making Sly Cooper, but nope, they made inFamous and now again, they're working on a new IP.

Sony Japan is always making new IPs.

Naughty Dog with Crash -> Jak -> Uncharted -> Last of Us

Bend would be making Syphon Filter, nope new IP.

Santa Monica was given freedom to make a new IP, even though it didn't work, they still tried. 

Media Molecule with LBP -> Tearaway -> Dreams. 

Guerilla with Killzone to Horizon. 

Even with their second party like Insomniac with Spyro -> Ratchet -> Resistance, and Level 5 and more.

I can go on, even their yearly studio, MLB Team is given some sort of freedom with finding new games to help produce like ModNation Racers and a bunch of others. And same with Poly, they've made a couple of non 

Lmao, please. It's a fact.

EDIT: Lol Sony has the most IPs, so I'm not even sure why I bothered with the whole list.

If you wanna argue neither company was great to indies, there is totally a discussion. But Sony was worse and thats why MS got great support early on. Over time, Sony relaxed and got better support.

However, your original point was Sony started the indie boom when MS actually deserves the credit.

Frankly, it doesent really matter and I do agree the indie scene has become oversaturated. But there are still gems.

Please give me examples as I don't know any. I've actually given you tons of examples. And even if Sony did treat indies worse, which I haven't heard of anything, Microsoft got indies because they looked for them. It was just a plan, like how Microsoft is doing BC right now, it's just a plan. 

And again, you seem to be confusing Microsoft getting indies first to indies being in a health environment. So if you can't give me any facts, and even if you did, it doesn't change what I've said, they've changed all their shit, BECAUSE OF SONY. It's a fact, you can see that RIGHT NOW, with how indies are given so much freedom now. You can see now that MS doesn't have a partiy rule or atleast not as severve as it use to be, you can see that indies don't need a publisher, they can actually publish their game themselves. You can not say that indies were better off in the 360/PS3 era than right now. You just can't. And I have a feeling you're going to reply and basically say nothing, like you just did, don't bother.