Well thank you for admitting the truth of the matter, money talks my friend! What will actually matter at the end of the day is money, in this industry, only money,  sad really but I remember a time of only quality. I believe the industry will only be divided by these little idiositricies of dollar value.

Another XBOX 360 thread in the 360 section spitting negativity from an official 360 Hater.
This is getting ridiculous.

Yes, there is one month exclusivety. What harm does it make to you? Is it your ca$h that MS is wasting?
God!

this guy is god

you go on believing that, but let me tell you that you are almost certainly wrong based on my actual experience and knowledge of the retail and electronics industries.

Activision didn't need squat from MS regarding MW2, but MS definately needed something from MW2 - a late boost around November/December plus re-enformcement of the idea in the marketplace it had exclusivity regarding MW2 and was the better console to buy the game for.

Not only did it surely cost MS something to get the DLC, it surely cost them to get the exclusive MW2 bundles.

Here's how it works, simplified.

Activision calculate estimated sales of MW2 on 360 and PS3 based on previous titles/trends and latest info.  They then calculate what they believe would the value of any requested bundles, etc.

Now, if someone want's exclusivity, the standard model is to ask for something equal in value to the potential lost sales from the other options.

So, for Activision to simply give MS exclusive DLC and bundles they would have to either feel they needed to do so to maintain the relationship or that the relative value of (in this case) the PS3 bundles and the DLC on PS3 was zero.

Now, neither is likely.  Acitvision are in fine shape and they don't need to be buddying up to MS for any reason.  Also, I seriosuly doubt an PS3 bundles of MW2 would have added no sales nor do I believe the DLC has no value on PS3 - therefore I am very sure that Activision negotiated both the bundles and the DLC - and took some form of payment or inducement to do so, which would have been at least equal to lost revenue from the PS3 stream.

Not having PS3 bundles for MW2 will have lost Activision some sales November/December.  A 30 day delay will loose them (arguably temporarily) a revenue stream that will be significant.  Why would they do that to remain friendly with MS when they would be in exactly the same (superior) position in the market to MS if they didn't, as well as seeing more revenue into the bargin?

Now, that is what is called a reasoned opinion (or an informed opinion) based on working in retail in US and Europe with most major retailers and suppliers and observing standard models for promotions, exclusive deals and business operation.

Do you have a reasoned opinion of your own, or just a plain opinion clearly based on a console bias?

EDIT: BTW 360 fans, don't read this wrong.  I think this post is borderline troll and I don't post in MS section unless I have something to say that I know isn't biased in any way.  As I pointed out in my original post I can see very good reasons for MS to secure the DLC, and it's their right as a business to do so, I will respond though to something I know is very likely wrong, such as believing Activision simply 'gave' MS this to maintain a business relationship.  It doesn't work like that.  Sure Activision want to have a good relationship with MS, but they can have that and squeeze them for money, and I doubt with the option to have a good relationship and give stuff on goodwill vs have a good relationship and secure additional income Activision would chose the former.

Inducement perhaps. A payment? HIGHLY doubtful.

It has been stated many times here that it would be of little value. I haven't once mentioned bundles, though I fully agree that due to their tangible TRANSFERABLE value, there was likely some sort of payment deal involved there.

But these map packs have little if any transferable value. As I stated earlier, anyone that has MW2 PS3 and was buying these packs, is still buying them.

Mate I have I 360 with more games than I have for the PS3,almost 2 to 1 actually. I just really dislike the way Microsoft carry themselves within the industry. It seem's to me that microsoft  are actually detrimental to the industry because they will pay money at the cost of other gamers enjoyment (PS3 owners) when in comes to DLC. I really dislike DLC (and microsoft) in the way that the average gamer is taken to the cleaners because of some exclusive agreement or some kind of corporate bullshit. I know, 'hate the game not the player', but since microsoft entered the game, only money talks! 

Maybe soon publishers will realise that money and profit is made from the quality of game, no matter the platform...

Activision being greedy as usual. Activision get the money from exclusive deal ( M$ ) , and they know PS3 Owners will buy the map packs regardless if they get them later. Activision just screwing over PS3 owners to get more money.

pathetic

could have spent that money on an actual game

its the same old story, but nobody cares

there are not really any value considering how the PS3 install base is growing, significatively important AND the PS3 is not hacked yet

The fact it is a month is irrelevant it achieved is marketing purpose. Also if you are MW2 fan a month could seem a long time.

It would be nice if they adopted the approach of paid for x period and free after. I think this is by far the best option for new maps to be adopted in the long run. I could be wrong but I think that was system was adopted by Bungie or was it the Gears people.