PS3 got a lot of support because it only required porting games from 360, not developing from scratch. However complicated it was to port them, it was cheap enough to ensure profits.

PSP wasn't really receiving much support from 3rd parties outside of Japan, and if I remember correctly UbiSoft supported DS more than PSP.

PSV is meant to be really easy to develop for, and the price to pay for the dev kit is extremely low too (€1,900).

I don't see a conspiracy here.

Actually, PS Vita dev kits only cost 2000€.

come on stop trying to trick us sony obviously partners up with the mole men to intimidate devs into supporting their platforms...

the fact that sony seems to be bending over backwards to make the vita easy to develope for...

http://kotaku.com/5751839/ngp-is-a-game-developers-dream

http://www.psvitahub.com/2011/08/sony-price-ps-vita-development-kits.html

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/01/great-little-war-game-heading-to-ps-vita-via-loaner-dev-kits/

is all part of a cover up

But............they don't

Call of Duty: All DLC on 360 first
Bethesda games: All DLC on 360 first
Epic: Makes a massive franchise like Gears of War a 360 exclusive
Square-Enix and Mistwalker have made exclusive 360 games
Nearly every title now is multiplat with a 360 version

and I could go on and on. At the end of the day publishers / developers favor whoever they think will offer them the most success. Some feel Sony is that way and other MS and still others Nintendo.

Sony has gone out of its way to help third parties and at times even develop jointly. During PS1 and PS2 era they have even saved publishers. Furthermore, Nintendo perceives their games to be completely superior to third parties (not the case most of the time), and that smug attitude gets the payback it deserves sadly. Sony has shown their 1st party offerings in many cases superior to 3rd parties but do not act like it. They lent FromSoftware support for developing Demon's Souls and you can see how successful that turned out. Then you have their support given to Quantic Dream with Heavy Rain, and the list goes on. Sony has done many things wrong like every company, and plenty of mistakes have been made, but they do know how to hold their end of the bargain and have proven to be strong despite such adversity. Despite them being last this gen so far, they have not received the smackdown they handed to Nintendo and MS in the past. Sony has also put out the best fight any handheld has given Nintendo in the past (gamegear, neo-geo pocket,etc), and in the end they have shown consistency throughout, and the same cannot be said about Nintendo (NES top, SNES barely top,N64 bottom, GameCube rock bottom, Wii top, handhelds always high top with DS struggling at the beginning).

Nintendo also tends to want to overprotect and overcontrol everything, although they have gotten better over the years (remember the limit on game releases they had for 3rd parties on the NES?). Still do not worry, the 3DS will do spectacular when they release Pokemon Pink/Purple/Sapphire/ part 20, and another 2D Mario. In the meantime I will take a sit and wait stance for the handheld side.

Square-Enix: well actually Infinite Undiscovery is microsofts IP. Microsoft made a deal with Tri-Ace to make the game for them.

Mistwalker: Hironobu Sakaguchi does not like Ken Kutaragi(the man who made PlayStation). That is why we never seen a Mistwalker game on any of Sony's platforms this generation

You're right, I checked and it's €1,900, I don't know where I got the 10,000 thing. But stronger proof then. Thanks.

Really? Most of times I feel they like Microsoft more for some reason (hint: shift + F4)

Ask straight away why they don't like Nintendo, we are not going to complain but I guess you already know the answer? (people buying Ninty plats for Ninty games, bullying in the 80's and 90's etc.)

People saying its Sony's reputation/calling in favours from ps1/2 dont make much sence to me, it didnt help Nintendo in the N64 era based off the NES/SNES success.

Also how did Sony save square/square-enix? Serious question. Didnt they have great success on the SNES? I always here it was part of the golden era (along with ps1) of JRPGs. Also didnt Nintendo save Square? From what I've read Final Fantasy was called such because Square was going out of buisness but it was such a success it saved them, nice way to show Nintendo their gratitude, leaving in 96 for Sony.

Actually Mr. I Bleed for M$, it's called moneyhatting. You should know that term well as Sony did it in the past, and M$ simply took a page from their book. Luckily the 360 leaves me very little to desire (LO comes to mind). Infinite Undiscovery you can keep, it blew big time. The Last Remnant I happily play on my PC with better fps AND better graphics tyvm, COD (couldn't care less after part 2), Bethesda is not my cup of tea, Bioware's ME (on my PC both 1 and 2). Here's my lovable list that I already enjoy KZ2-3, Resistance trilogy (getting 3 soon), Uncharted trilogy, GOW, HR, DS, LBP1-2, etc, etc. HR is not first party, nor was DS technically but Sony helps 3rd parties so they got that ip.