What the OP says has some truth to it, but I still believe Sony supports indies because;

1- Its a hell of a lot cheaper (since they are still strapped for cash)
2- It fills the gaps between SONY games.

I'd rather have indie games filling the first year void than no games at all.

Short term benefits and long term benefits.

Many strategies would actually have both. Stopgap/cost could be short term, building relationships with up and comings would be long term.

they are way cheaper to moneyhat

I can't think of one Indie developer that went on to be a AAA developer.  Which ones are they?

As far as I'm aware, Sony aren't actually doing the indie push as big as Nintendo; I'd have to check my sources on this, but last I remember was reading that Nintendo have more indie games in development than Sony and MS combined.

I've read that Nintendo were more forthcoming with distribution of the Unity engine, too, though I think Sony and MS are catching up on that. I'm sure there were a couple of other engines that Nintendo distribute for free, too.

True, could be a 'kill to birds with one stone' kind of thing, but I feel as though Sony was only looking at the short term initially.

Doubtful. That would assume that none of them went to business school and took strategic management/strategic planning courses. I mean let's give them a LITTLE credit here.

Not all decisions companies make are long term though. This is long term in the sense that they wanted as many games as possible. Not because that way they will remember and give Sony more games in the future.That's just not gonna happen like that.

Ppl should really stop looking at Sony only having one reason or the other for supporting indies here.

Instead, they should look at the possibility of "all of the above".

Or do people think that we forum dwellers somehow know strategic planning better than the people that a large multinational is actually paying to do strategic planning?