the reasoning of this article is simple, it's made by playstationlifestyle.net and they probably feel betrayed that SE is supporting the 360, just like when SE dropped Nintendo support in favor of Sony.

Baseless and ignorant. How can having the lowest userbase in Japan be applied to the PS3? How can having no brand equity in the JRPG market be applied to the playstation brand? How can having a public past of paying for 3rd party exclusives be applied to the playstation brand? 

I think this article explains a bit better

http://www.finalfantasyunion.com/news/the-decline-of-square-enix-since-2003--342.html

That's a really good article.

If MS isn't paying SE for exclusives, they sure are foolish for making them.

The PS3 kicks the 360's tail in Japan. 360 exclusives are, perhaps, the reason SE is doing so poorly as of late. TLR and IU both should have been multiplats, and both should have been in development longer (obviously, from their quality upon release for the 360).

SE may have taken some petty amount of funding from MS for timed exclusivity, and then pushed the titles out the door early on the 360, believing that they could make up the difference later with an improved PS3 release, whereas, in fact, early releases probably damaged both games rep heavily, and will cost them more sales on the PS3 than they ever garnered on the 360 -- perhaps even making the "moneyhatting" deal not worthwhile.

As far as the Eidos purchase goes... wierd yes, but Eidos does own Legacy of Kain. Legacy of Kain, the first PS1 RPG, was downright fantastic for its time (the first was made by Silicon Knights -- Crystal Dynamics bought the IP and made action games with it). A modern incarnation of Kain -- RPGs from SE, and Action Adventure games from Crystal Dynamics could be really fantastic.

You'd think, however, that buying old IPs would cost them more money than its worth. Then again, their new IP ideas (TLR, IU) didn't turn out so hot. Maybe they feel Kain is a western IP that really suits their strategy. Or maybe they just want some decent Action Adventure engine tech -- Eidos actually has a lot of good action IPs and engines (Tomb Raider, Hitman, Deus Ex, Soul Reaver, etc.).

 SE became popular in the West because of sony. they advertised FFVII like hell back in the day.  think about it. Nintendo always neutered games (remember Mortal Kombat?) back in the day. if Nintendo were smart (back then), and if Squaresoft stayed with them. we'd see another half-assed FF game in the west.  (and KH wouldnt exist). everything in FFVII remained intact when it was released on the PSone: no name-changing, no changed character models, and Barret's dirty mouth.

It's been said like a million times, but here goes again: Microsoft bankrolled Infinite Undiscovery. They own the IP rights. S-E only published it.

Meanwhile, Last Remnant is a multiplatform title and has been planned as one from the start. A PC release is imminent, and the PS3 version is held up in development. 

^To improve clarity and drill the message in:

"Infinite Undiscovery was announced in September 2006 by Famitsu.[6] Initially it was believed that Microsoft would publish the game[7], however at TGS 2007, Hajime Kojima and Hiroshi Ogawa stated that Square Enix took over publishing duties because they have more "know-how" with RPGs.[8] However, since Microsoft was the original publisher, they still hold the intellectual property rights to Infinite Undiscovery.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Undiscovery

@badgenome

SE only published it? Didn't they also develop it? It doesn't make sense for SE to publish a game that MS owns the IP for. MS could just publish it itself. Kinda like they do with Gears. But anyways bankrolled or not. SE could have used that development team to come up with their own IP and published a multiplat game and made more money. I suppose they couldnt have just pushed out a shitty title like they did if that was the case though.

Tri-Ace develops both Infinite Undiscovery and Star Ocean. The two 360 exclusives published by Square Enix.