GI.biz Microsoft's Checkbook Warfare is bound to fail...

[forevercloud3000]

GamechaserBE said:
I feel like becoming so old when reading articles with information that is not totally correct and should be known by veterans..

Anyway:

In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment America signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue dollars and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider_II

similar situation to this for Sony/Square and the FF series I would assume

but there is a key difference. Sony didn't pay these 3rd parties diddly squat for their exclusivity(thats why it was so easy for them to break). If Sony didn't pay for GTA exclusivity, which we know they didn't because that is why Rockstar were allowed to break contract with GTAIV, I highly doubt they ever payed for any others before last gen.These deals were done with just skilled manuevering on Sony's part. Sony was already crushing competition and being aligned with one of the big companies(especially the one in the lead) comes with bigger benefits than money itself.

Publicity is very valuable, and often doesn't cost a dime. Games like Heavy Rain, Killzone, or even Gears would have easily been overlooked had they not been exclusives.Single console owners often look for titles that make their system stand out, ones that utilize their console to the best  of it's ability. These games get put into a special spotlight that you just can't get as a Multiplat(as a new IP). Its kind of like Symbiosis, I'm Popular, you hang with me and my crew so that logically makes you popular.