Don't worry, I understand that the GTA deal was all about the "big picture," which is about selling systems and beating the competition. But you can't tell anyone who is business savvy that $50 million is not a lot of money because it is, especially for something that isn't a full game. You have to figure, what else could MS have done with $50 million. They probably could've funded at least 5 games from smaller devs like Heavy Rain. Obviously MS gambled on GTA DL content being more worthwhile. Perhaps they will be right, but it's still a big gamble to make when you compare it to other projects that could've been funded with that kind of money. 

Personally, if i were running a gaming company, I'd rather spend the money on smaller devs with fresh ideas, especially considering that every generation there seems to be one or two new IPs that seem to blow up. Last gen those two IPs were GTA and Halo. When MS bought Bungie they definitely didn't spend so much on so little like they did with the GTA extra content. 

It's the big games and well known IPs that sell the most games though.  Why fund smaller devs when the chances of them creating IPs that sell in the millions (which is what would be required to move systems) is slim?

Wow, the Sony First party, I'm sorry, it takes more than first party titles to float a console. N64 and Gamecube much?

Better think of good reasons to explain why boastful claims of Sony's IPs don't sell the PS3 much better when they come out.

 I'm not trying to be an ass, but I had no idea Sony was funding LA Noire ala MS funding GTA DL content. When did this news break? 

I'm not entirely sure about the law but isn't it illegal to simply buy exculsivity. I thik it breaches competion laws. You need to dress it up in some way like being the publisher of the game (why does epic need MS to publish a game?) or saying you are helping them learn to program for your machine (since when does Epic needs Sony's help to develope games?).

I'm not 100% sure so I shouldn't have posted it (I thought I was correct until I went back to get proof for you)...

I read an interview with Team Bondi here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=54626

And in it there was this that kinda stood out to me:

"Kristan Reed: Do you believe you'll be as ambitious this time around? If so, in what way?

Brendan McNamara: I'd say the new game is even more ambitious as it's going to ask new questions from our audience in terms of gameplay, how the narrative plays out and also the concept of success and failure.

Kristan Reed: How are you funding the project? Has SCEA given you an advance or is this self-funded and totally independent?

Brendan McNamara: The project is wholly funded by Sony Computer Entertainment America. We have a long-term exclusive arrangement with SCEA."

Of course the problem is the interview takes place in 2004, but LA Noire wasn't announced to the public until 2005... 

Why would it be illeagal to offer incentives for doing business with one's company? Tight business relationships are how the rest of the world works, especially asia. So, I can understand how some of these things might look from a western viewpoint. (I'm a whiteboy btw, just a worldly one).

Secondly, this is just business rhetoric. Don't take Jack T's statements for absolute truth. I just can't think that MS doesn't support its developers in the same way. Nintendo, doesn't need to with its awesome sales. Sony, back in the days of the PS1 and PS2, has seen that game development was one of the biggest ways to win. It has always been the leader for volume of games so, it should come as no surprise that they are pushing hard for that, and currently, when sony's sales are horrible, it looks like they will be getting more exclusives than Microsoft so you know that some big money is being given to the developers. =)

Saying Nintendo is too dependent on first-parties says that they depend on themselves. Pretty obvious...

Saying Microsoft is too dependent on third-parties says that their first and second party developers are weak. Very true, that's why Halo moves millions of systems, while third parties hardly do anything to hardware sales...

Bad choice of words. Obviously, the N64 and Gamecube did float, as they maintained Nintendo's profitability and Nintendo's place in the gaming hardware. Sinking is Sega. Nintendo obviously did not sink.

If you had said that "it tkaes more than first party titles to make a console an amazing success and the generational winner," then I'd agree.  

I don't think it is illegal to offer a company money to work with you but it is illegal to pay a company not to work with your competitor. For example the EU is currently investigating the BDA and HD DVD group becuase of allegations that exclusive studio support was bought.