And you sound like clutching at every straw.

So Sony didn't treat RiME dev all that great
http://sirusgaming.info/2017/06/rime-developers-had-more-creative-freedom-with-greybox-as-publisher-than-sony/
Sony didn't allow the creative freedom they needed.

totally possible although ND and SM said they enjoyed quite a lot of freedom, perhpas this one didn't had the confidence from Sony to do the same.

Sony were dicks to my friend developing a game for them.  Also PSM (not PSN) was an absolute terror to use until they switched to Unity. Sony isn't always great. He's not bitter towards them but not exactly excited about Sony games or consoles anymore. He's an indie dev.

I believe it, not all relationships go wrong, but do you agree that sometimes unproven talents get a little ahead of theirselves on their demands?When we are starting we need to be even more humble and receptive to them prove ourselves and get our space and respect.

I mean yeah. He's a good friend and he has experience working with R* but when on your own it's different in how you do things and look at things. I adore my PS4 and it's easily becoming one of my fave systems ever. That said Sony like Nintendo or MS is a corporation and they will be dicks on occasion. Some more than others.

Totally, usually not easy to be the small guy

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment.