the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just because there is no hard physical paperwork that is viewable to the public on MS paying these companies for at least most of it's exclusives doesn't mean they are not. Sony could possibly be doing it too by this very same rule. Only thing is Sony has come out to the public and denied ever doing so(at the time being at least), and blatently accused MS of doing so. I don't think large companies are into name calling, unless that is exactly what they are(from their point of view). MS is moneyhatting developers, that is the truth.

We can talk about how there is no physical proof(but really, what physical proof would exist for such a thing?) of it but at the end of the day you KNOW they are secretly doing it. They are Microsoft after all, it's the same way they have aquired everything else they have,with sheer numbers of dollar bills...

PS: And I am not trying to say whether Moneyhatting is wrong or right. Its just that Sony for a very long time had a moral belief against such practices and refused to do the same. In turn, MS kept swiping games from under them. Sony could have easily done the same as them. Yet think of it this way, do you really want to be in a bidding war with MS? My geuss is your answer is NO. So Sony's only way of securing a exclusive is left to making it themselves, or convincing 3rd parties that exclusivity holds some other benefit for them.

This is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a long time.

There are many instances of Sony making obnoxious and even misleading statements.

Prior to the Playstations 3's release, Sony was foolishly overconfident in the PS3's potential considering its price.

Lets not forget the rootkit fiasco?

The proprietaty technology Sony forces into its products (Hello UMD)?

Stating the PS2 would have Toy Story like graphics? Along with many other false capabilities of the PS2?

Dual Shock is last generation?

Now Sony is supposed to be some morally upstanding company because its in third place?

Sony as a company and all companies have made questionable ethical decisions at some point or another.

If this generation has taught us anything, it's that these companies will say just about anything to discredit the competition.

Just because Sony states Microsoft is moneyhatting, does not make it true. But I can see why a fanboy would want to believe that (Sony has

never been honest or ethical as a company).

Regardless of how high and mighty Sony proclaims to be, I am sure they have provided monetary incentive for exclusives at some point or another.

There is no way an incentive was not provided by Sony in some way to put an exclusive on the PS3, it's has the smallest market share and highest price on the market. And Agent is a new 3rd party IP. As far as I know, 3rd party new exclusive IPs have not performed that well on the PS3.

I'm sorry, but illogical bias motivated posts really are annoying.

This is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a long time.

There are many instances of Sony making obnoxious and even misleading statements.

Prior to the Playstations 3's release, Sony was foolishly overconfident in the PS3's potential considering its price.

Lets not forget the rootkit fiasco?

The proprietaty technology Sony forces into its products (Hello UMD)?

Stating the PS2 would have Toy Story like graphics? Along with many other false capabilities of the PS2?

Dual Shock is last generation?

Now Sony is supposed to be some morally upstanding company because its in third place?

Sony as a company and all companies have made questionable ethical decisions at some point or another.

If this generation has taught us anything, it's that these companies will say just about anything to discredit the competition.

Just because Sony states Microsoft is moneyhatting, does not make it true. But I can see why a fanboy would want to believe that (Sony has

never been honest or ethical as a company).

Regardless of how high and mighty Sony proclaims to be, I am sure they have provided monetary incentive for exclusives at some point or another.

There is no way an incentive was not provided by Sony in some way to put an exclusive on the PS3, it's has the smallest market share and highest price on the market. And Agent is a new 3rd party IP. As far as I know, 3rd party new exclusive IPs have not performed that well on the PS3.

I'm sorry, but illogical bias motivated posts really are annoying.

please read again before making long outlandish posts.

Majority of your points, while true about sony, have no bearing on what I stated. I didn't say they were some Holier then Thou Company who could do no wrong. I simply stated that they don't(or at least didn't) moneyhatt exclusives.  MS makes serious bank, with money to wipe their asses with. Sony is a very prosperous company, but doesn't make nearly that amount of cash to win in a bidding war against MS. So yea, SOny decided not to get in such debacles.

Sony wasn't moneyhatting, because if they were all those damn PS exclusive series would have stayed EXCLUSIVE,DUH! How much sense does that make? Oh, Sony moneyhatted GTAIV......for them to put it on 360? Sony is also notorious for being caught RED HANDED whenever they do anything, proven by the media's close attention to every misstep they have made this gen. If Sony said they weren't moneyhatting, the media WOULD find out, some how some way, so they could blast sony to holy hell for it.

And my main statement is on Company slander. Sony(or MS or Nintendo) would not make a statement like that unless it held some sort of ground. You named pretty much every Sony slip up over the last 10 years....but is there one of them defaming another company with lies?

Once again someone is screaming "WITCH/FANBOY" before fully taking in the situation. Someone needs to take a sharp look in the mirror...