Since that game is already on the PC, personally I'm just wanting the JRPG's Microsoft is holding onto - Eternal Sonata, ToV, Star Ocean, and whatever else hits only the 360.  We know Eternal Sonata is coming, so Sony's deal paid off, since there's extra content along with it.

However, for these other RPG's that may never hit the system - we'll never know for sure if Sony's policy drove them off.  Therefore, you can't know for sure that this isn't hurting the PS3 in the end.  Of course, we have no idea how much that extra content will cost the 3rd parties, but tack that onto the PS3 already being harder to develop for, and it doesn't help the chances for ports to come.  Better late than never, IMO.  Besides, don't people claim there are more JRPG fans on Sony's console?  I could really use some 360 JRPG's on my PS3, I don't care if it's a year old or not.  In fact, if they don't come, I may even end up buying a 360 (and I really don't like Microsoft).  Sony doesn't want that to happen, right?  That is my issue with this policy.

I still don't see the problem here, except that you want a reason to bash on Sony for making a business decision.  If it doesn't work out for them, they simply change it or they don't get as many titles.  Remember when you said:

"I think people have too much information for their own good nowadays!"

It applies here.  Maybe you know too much about how Sony's business works in the real world.  Maybe you don't know enough.  People get together in meetings, work out a deal, and if it falls through so be it.  There is nothing new or amazing about this or any other practice.  Maybe Sony's selling point is that people might buy the game twice to get extra content thereby increasing the sales for the developer.  You don't know.  Again, they have to find a way to get people to buy their game, on their console.  If it's the same game that's available on the 360, then why the hell would someone want to go out and buy it on the PS3?  Sony could be seeing that they will not dominate again as they did in the past.  They are likely gunning for the equivalent sales angle and assume that somewhere down the line, people will own both consoles.  The way I look at it, you are only receiving this small bit of information on a strategy that could be a lot bigger than you know about.  It's kind of like trying to figure out that the General on the other side of the hill is doing with his army when all you can see is a small group of scouts on the hill.

I'm also pretty sure Sony is kicking in some help in each of these games.  If the developer listens... that's another story.  Carmack sounds like he doesn't really listen.  I'd blame his ego for that.

Give me a source for that information or it's merely speculation.

@Andir: I don't see why you're so much against this thread. It's well-sourced and useful information for a website like ours, which is very much about the business of the games market, not just about customers (which we also are).

Personally, this doesn't affect me much, so the "too much information" thing doesn't apply here. I didn't even buy Quake Wars.

It affects the video games market though, so it's something which should be discussed here.

Lets see - A % of people won't finish the game which means they won't care about extra content.

The attach rate for downloadable content is less than 50% if you consider the number of people who care enough to pay for it.

The way I look at it, the deal could have gone like this:

Carmack: The PS3 jsut doesn't work like the PS3.  You should provide me incentives or I'll delay the game so it sells better on the 360.

Sony: We just don't have the means to be footing the bill on this stuff.  Here.  This is a list of some information we obtained form ___ on using ___ technique and how it works with the Cell/RSX.

Carmack:  But this doesn't work with my code structure.  In order to do this, I'd have to delay the game on your console.

Sony:  We have no problem with that, but we highly suggest that you add in some extra content so that the delayed product has a selling point.  Otherwise, it's not likely to sell well.

Nobody really knows what conversations went on.  Nobody knows how much self indulgence Carmack is adding, and nobody here knows any more than one side of this story.

A well sourced set of information would have both sides of the debate.

We aren't talking about downloadable content.  We are talking about content that is ON the disc, IN the game and has no additional effort required by the user.  Again, point me to a professional survey that says:

"[greater than 50% of the people in this survey] don't care about extra content."

I see, so we can't discuss anything unless we have enough material to make a PhD thesis on it?

Regarding your previous reply, it's pretty obvious you didn't even watch the video, and now you're spamming the thread based on your speculation.

Which reply "on there"?  I'll clarify it for you if it doesn't make sense "on there."  I totally didn't watch the video "on there." /sarcasm /humor

And thanks for taking my words and spinning them to fit your needs as well.  I never said anything about a PhD thesis.  I was simply stating that you and I and everyone else here don't have enough information for this conversation.  We don't know if that deal was between Sony and Carmack alone or if it's their business stand.