Yeah I would have to agree. MS has done a fantastic job of luring 3rd parties, even on xbox.

They has have done a very good job at marketing. Halo 3. Is there need for another example. Also, your japan event above is an example of this. Even in a country where the can sell more in 2 weeks in US than the entire lifetime, they still hold major marketing events to try to push the brand.

You say this as if MS is the only game company guilty of this.  Have you seen the Assassin's Creed or CoD4 commercials?  There's the Sony 'Ding!' at the beginning, then gameplay, then a flash of the logo, and a guy's voice that says "Playstation 3".  It doesn't say 'only for--' but it doesn't even show the logo for MS.

Wow, you might want to check your tinfoil hat to make sure it's not malfunctioning.

While I agree with the majority here that MS is not the best of company's, anyone thinking Sony doesn't do similar things by "buying exclusives" is just plain living in a fantasy world. They both have money, they both use "shaddy business practices" (like that even matters in the business world...), and they both should have $ in their names (M$ and $ony respectively). Has anyone seen the recent PS3 ads? They're awesome for the most part, and anytime a third-party multi-platform game has been shown, the "Playstation 3" symbol in all its Spiderman 3 font glory appears on the screen at the end of the commercial. Does anyone really think they didn't spend money to have their name in the spot a la MS did with Guitar Hero 2/Madden? Please people, stop being so naive!

I'm sorry, but this "MS is evil, and Sony is an angel" stuff is silly and people believing it should really fact-check their opinions and really see what each company does to get games on their respective consoles. Neither Sony or MS are honest companies. Please learn to realize this.

I would wager that if it were possible to see what goes on inside these "dealings", you will find in the end the two companies are really not that different from one another in their practices (in fact, I would bet they're exactly the same...they both use this thing called...money!). Might be a humbling experience actually for some on here that are clinging to one company as "the savior", while at the same time disregarding anything from the "other companies". Not only will you find that that view point is downright stupid, but you'll finally be able to try out the "other consoles". They're gigantic comapnies people...they want to make money; anything else they tell you is PR fodder that should be taken with a truck-load of salt (in other words, as a whole, the company doesn't care that much about us gamers...they just want our dollars/yen/pounds/euros/etc, and as long as they're getting that they'll keep doing what they're doing). End of story.

Oh please, you can say that about all the console makers. cough/killzone/cough/wiifit/cough 

The fact of the matter is Microsoft is now using many of the same tactics Sony used to use. The difference now is that Sony can hardly afford those tactics, whereas MS has more than enough cash to sustain this strategy. Although I would say part of the reason Sony is approaching this gen differently is how they turned far less profit than you would have expected given their market share during the previous gens.

Basically Sony wizened up and decided that focusing on inhouse development could turn them bigger profits than an all out rush for market share, ala Nintendo. Then again, it doesn't look like this is working for them as much as you would think for reasons I wont go into here. Also the PS1 and PS2 strategy did wonders for Sony from a PR perspective and created a dedicated fanbase - something that MS is keen on imitating.

Edit; Hockeyman is my new favorite poster

Look at EA, there was a time when Microsoft was practically begging EA to make EA Sports games for the Xbox 1. Now EA and Microsoft are very close and the exact same thing appears to now be happening with Square Enix. Square Enix showing up at Microsoft's press event at the Tokyo Game Show says a lot considering during the Xbox 1 days they weren't even on speaking terms.

Blue Dragon's Anime has the life of a crappy anime... so... it already has 60+ episodes and they still haven't accomplished their original goal?

Aside from the Dreamcast is there an established console for which EA hasn't make games?  EA is close to all 3 console makers.  Square Enix and Nintendo used to not be on speaking terms either but now they are close (especially the Enix half it seems).

For the most part 3rd parties care about money, money, money.  Whether that is the money a 1st party throws at them for exclusivity or because of the sales they can get on their console that is what thye care about.  MS and  Nintendo can both make a lot more money for a 3rd party than last gen so 3rd parties are closer to them and further from Sony.  Also MS has boatloads of cash to throw at them which is something Nintendo hasn't been doing so far.

As usually you seem to believe your opinions are facts.

How blinded? Your an a$$ if ive ever seen one.

I would say its more of the fact that MS has to rely on 3rd parties and so that is their focus. Nintendo and Sony have gotten to the point where they make a lot of the best games on their systems, MS does not have that yet.

So to a degree, Nintendo and Sony were relying a lot on their own games whereas MS had to go outside and get games from others.

However, MS is good in this kind of game, in my experience, most large western companies like MS are extremely good at interacting with other companies and using their expertise in distribution/capital/etc to bring them onto their side. Contrast this with Nintendo who is still extremely insular.