Nintendo started the entire exclusivity business during the SNES era. Back then the console marke was far more vibrant and Sony was just yet another newcommer, who actually knew what he was doing. Lets not forget it was Nintendo who screwed them over with their exit from the unified console deal They never needed to moneyhat exclusive deals in any major way as 3rd parties flocked to them after they burnet themselves with the horrible deals they made with Nintendo and later with MS. Or ar we forgetting the exclusive rush MS had with the first Xbox? Or the pricedrops of the GC that made it far cheaper than a PS2? Or the several billion $ loss MS had with their first system just because they bought up exclusives and sold the system at a loss?
Your memory seems to be selective as of late Rol, for pretty much any info that doesn't suits your bill.
1. Nintendo didn't pay for any exclusivity on the SNES, just like they didn't do it on the NES.
2. Nintendo "screwed over" Sony because Sony's intent was to make Nintendo a third party publisher with the Play Station project, so Nintendo would have had to pay royalties to Sony for making games for the SNES CD add-on.
3. The guy who was Squaresoft's CEO in the 1990s is on record saying that Squaresoft went with Sony because of how good of a deal Sony gave them for going exclusively to PlayStation.
4. Early GC and Xbox price drops were a result of Sony's aggressive PS2 price cut. The PS2 was already outselling the GC and Xbox at the time, so it wouldn't have needed that price cut, but Sony did it anyway in hopes that Nintendo and Microsoft would follow Sega in making an exit.
My memory is fine, its yours that is questionable. Especially your belief that Sony didn't moneyhat exclusive deals in any major way when it's 100% confirmed that some of the biggest IPs in gaming during their respective time (Final Fantasy on PS1 and Grand Theft Auto on PS2) were moneyhatted by Sony.
Tomoyuki Takechi, CEO of Squaresoft: "Sony basically gave us the best deal they were giving to any publisher. And they did a lot of public relations work and marketing on their dime. They gave us a great deal to help convince us to come over. … I can’t talk about the details, but one thing I can say is that Sony went very low on the per-unit royalties that we had to pay."
I don't think it's necessary to go over the more recent moneyhats of Sony because they should still be fresh enough in people's minds, especially as far as the PS4 and upcoming PS5 are concerned.
Yes, so all that you proved me is the fact that Sony actually worked on maintaining a good relationship with 3rd parties while Nintendo decided not to, hence the result that stilkl can be felt a quarter century later. Nintendo was taking massive chunks as royalties, and Sony decided not to do this. Nintendoi taught that they were the only 800 pund gorilla in the ring (let me see if this rings a bell) and they failed misserably.
Nintendo was also notorios about signing only exclusive deals with 3rd parties during the SNES era. This is also a very well documented fact, reason why Sega often got tthe shitty versions of games or no games at all.
The fact was that Sony managed to cut the price of the PS2 for one simple reason: they were selling shitloads and they could afford it. Also, because of their gaming library, even at a higher price/lower specs they destroyed the competition. I would simply say bravo to that.
All in all, I could agree that your memory is fairly intact, though the way you analize them leaves a whole lot to be desired.