Some trades people friends of mine (builders, carpet layers etc) say the rich folks are always the slowest payers, and the ones who niggle most over the bill.

Similarly my artist friend, who sells his painting for $50K or more through a New York Art dealer, said it's the richest buyers who are the meanest price hagglers and the slowest to pay. You get a millionnnaire buying a painting they will normally pay the asking price and in reasonable time. But a billionnaire will demand a price discount, because they are who they are and everyone must dance to their tune. Meanwhile once you take the dealer's commission off and the other costs of producing the work and the time it takes, even though 1 painting for 50K sounds a lot his effecitve hourly rate isn't much more than minimum wage. So a billionnaire haggling to knock $5K of the price of a painting really hurts the bank balance, even though for him (usually a him) it's chump change.

What are you talking about? The indie devs didn't get paid for their share of the game sales. Doesn't matter if the games are exclusive or not. When MS sells their games on their system, the devs also need to get a share of the sale. Otherwise, they're giving away their games for free to MS. And only MS makes a profit. No dev on the planet would agree to a deal like that. So there would never be any non exclusive games on Xbox.

I was reffering to a deal in which indie devs would be paid for exclusivety (this is rare but theoretically possible). And I never said that Indie devs shoudn't get any revenue of software sales. I was instead stating that if an indie dev produces software for all three systems they shouldn't be given money from microsfot as so that they stay alive. why do i bring up giving money to multi platform indie devs? Because it's what playstation is doing, and it's not healthy for a market to lose money giving it to diying devs.  

I see now that i didn't make it clear what tranzitions of money were being made for what purposes and buisness choices were being made by xy companies, my apoligies if that was unclear. 

...kiiiiind of off topic though, considering the entire point here isn't that Microsoft wont give money to developers to 'help them stay alive,' i.e like they're a charity, or paying extra bonuses,  it's that Microsoft hasn't given them their deserved piece of the revenue Microsoft made selling their game in the first place. This is basically someone selling your product on commission, but not giving you any of the money that they made selling your product. Now, if Microsoft both rectifies this quickly, and ideally doesn't pull this kind of shit again, then we'll just call it a black eye for now. But I'm assuming you agree that what Microsoft has done here is, without conflict, a very bad thing. =P

I totally agree - Infact that retro city rampage guy is waiting for his  money from nintendo for the wii version, which they refuse to pay until it hits a threshold, even though i never intend to play the wii version, i bought it to try and help him

I'll try to keep this short as so that no one's computer frezes. (but i'm not making any promises);

I do agree that in this instance  the interest provided in said product =/= cash flow given out.

However no console producer should or company in general should have to send sums of money so other companies in the same industry don't go bankrupt as this will cause said bigger company to lose money therefore relying on another company to meet consumer demand (smaller comapny won't be able to meet consumer demand if they are insufficient as previously stated), hence sending the doller worth down due to higher prices for less product.

and yes it is slightly irrelevent, but only if one isn't considereing the entire industry when analysing zy companies decisions. that is why i compared microsfts handling of indie devs to sony's handling (in my opinion neither of them are handling the cash flow correctly). 

Well, I guess "being unclear" is a bit of an understatement. You didn't even mention that you were not going to talk about the topic at hand.

You started off by saying "I have two conflicting opinions about this."
"This" would imply the topic at hand (Being paid for game sales) to anyone reading your post.

Then you went on to use pretty much the exact same term as was used in the topic title and opening post with: "they shouldn't get paid" without diffirentiating it from the topic at hand in any way. People reading your post would come to the conclusion that you are talking about the topic at hand, and yet clearly, you're talking about something else.
That's why I asked "What are you talking about" (And Don Ferrari did as well.)
It's not that I didn't understand what you were talking about. I did. It's more of why you're talking about it, the way you did. Perhaps I should have written "Why are you talking about that?"

The way you wrote your post it just honestly looked like you didn't read the article properly and assumed this was about payment for something else. Namely the thing Sony are doing that you mentioned later on. I don't mean to be mean or anything. You seem polite and intelligent. It's just hard to imagine you didn't notice the way you wrote your post.