lol

I would like examples too. Between, Im dissapointed if they really had to cut the fire stage from Super Puffball Adventure 3, lets hope they can at least make the extra thunder level fit on the DVD :P.

Of course any dev given a chance by MS will probably benefit, but the thing is I haven't heard those comments leveled against Sony.  I'm not refuting that MS helps devs, just proposing that Sony might have a slightly better situation.

Then why does PSN lag so far behind XBLA when it comes to the volume of quality downloadable titles?  I personally have never understood that considering some of the supposed advantages of PSN that some of those aforementioned vocal developers have talked up ...

Well you got me there, but I think some of it just might be the aggressive stance MS has had on online play and LIVE for years.  They've largely been the pace setter, with PSN being forced to ramp up their service as well.  PSN has largely caught up imo, but I think it might just come down to that.  I can't think of another feasible reason to choose it.

Actually, it's probable the underlined is partially a result of the bolded.

Eurogamer posted an article the other day discussing how Microsoft's strict Xbox Live policies can prevent PSN games from ever appearing on the platform, while Sony's more open policies allow for former Xbox Live exclusives to appear on PSN.  This is why games like Castle Crashers, Braid, and Limbo eventually become cross platform, while games like Comet Crash and Soldner-X do not.  Then there was Trine, which was announced and even demoed for 360 by Atlus but ultimately never released due to such policies.

When given the option, it's not surprising that small developers may focus what little funds they have on XBL, hoping to port to PSN down the road with whatever income they recieve from the initial release, given the reverse could mean no XBL release at all.

Jonathan Blow actually came out after Braid's release and expressed much disdain for Microsoft's XBL policies, but he said XBL is where the money is, so there's not much you can do.

Third parties are turned on by Microsoft's take no shit attitude. Microsoft is the bad boy their parents warned them about. Sony is the nice guy that gives them everything they ever wanted. Everyday, after Sony makes sweet sweer love to third parties in their huge Blu Ray house, Microsoft comes over and picks the Third Party up and fucks the hell out of them in his DVD trailer.

Third parties like it dirty.

And like somebody already said, Nintendo was far worse. Third parities weren't allowed to make Nes games that competed directly with Nintendo's games. They could only produce a certain number of games per year. They had to buy a certain number of cartridges from Nintendo to put their games on before the game released. They couldn't release the same game for competing platforms until after a year had passed.

This continued until the PS1 era. When Sony started kicking serious ass, that's when Nintendo learned a little humility. Thing is, Nintendo third party support has never been the same, since. And, while I don't have anything to support the assumption that Sony made a similar move, I recall a few bigger games getting early release on PS2 (MGS2, GTA3) while, at the same time, games like Splinter Cell would get released much earler on Xbox. Maybe, to a degree, everybody is guilty.

O_o ....ehm... I'm guessing you didn't get some lately from your gf.... you wanna talk about it? we're here for you... and maybe Seece even a bit more if you want to...

@Nikkom, is it THAT obvious!?