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.