lol.  Sony did it ALL the time the past 2 gens.  GTA series, FF series, DQ series, Tomb Raider series, DMC series, Tekken series, Onimusha series, Ace Combat series, Soul Reaver 2, VF4, SC3, etc, etc.

I think the real issue now is that because they don't have an overwhelming userbase lead, it's getting harder and harder to get 3rd parties to commit to exclusives.  On PS2 buying exclusivity was probably pretty cheap, since that's where 70% of your audience already was anyway (though it backfired sometimes, like with Soulcalibur 3).  Now though, they'd have to convince a 3rd party to look at 45% of the HD base, and only 25% of the overall console base.... sounds like a more expensive proposition from their end.

For the same reason you already mention (PS2 userbase) im not sure they even had to pay a dollar for exclusivity. Games that are exclusive does have a bigger hype and a bigger fanbase following it, its an advantage in itself. Using your numbers, since PS2 had 70% of the video game userbase it makes sense for developer to release exclusive without Sony purchasing any license. It cut the development cost and game will sale as much or more since they produce a better title and ensure more hype for the title.

This is only educated guess, I have absolutely no idea if they had to pay or not to receive as many exclusives last gen. I would like proof one way or the other. A lot of people in this thread claim Sony as being hypocrit and unfair player. Is there someone with any proof of contractual agreement between 3rd party and Sony in the times of PS1/PS2 that proves money hatting? Probably not, but you can find a lot of examples of Sony funding development of games, exactly what they are saying. So the educated guess to make is that developers wanted to be exclusives because they knew their titles would sell well and that they could focus only on one version or that the games development was funded by Sony. A partnership VS purchasing a license is definitly not the same thing. If you think it is the same thing because the game end up being an exclusives you should re-think your logic.

A lot of companies and franchises that rose up during the PS2 days were still independent, Sony didn't open a lot of studios, they bought them after a few years of relationship - Naughty Dog was bought at the start of the PS2 era, Sony Bend used to be a company called Eidetic, they bought Zipper in 2006, they bought Guerrilla Games after KZ1, etc. It's a popular view that MS "can't create, so they buy everything", well, Sony does the same.

Also, a large part of their successes this gen have been 2nd parties, Sony doesn't own Insomniac, Sucker Punch, ThatGameCompany, Ready At Dawn, etc. Either through dev incentives, publishing, or outright buying exclusivity, these are all companies that have little reason to develop exclusively, yet they do, and you can bet it's not from the kindness of their hearts. it's a popular view that MS "gives incentives, strikes deals, and pays devs", well, Sony does the same.

MS have a different aproach, and I think they have massively wasted the talent they have had before (Ensemble, FASA, Heavy Gun, the flight sim guys), but they have also "helped" megahits bigger than what Sony has (in terms of sales).

Sony and MS are two sides of the same coin. People need to get off this "poetic" idea they have of these corporations, specially Sony (for what they did in bringing games to mainstream), it's just business, and neither one is "more evil" than the other.

Asking for "proof of contracts" is a non-starter, that sort of information isn't public.  You won't find it for 360 games either though, which seem pretty generally accepted to be "moneyhatted".

One specific instance of likely contracted exclusivity though was at E3 2001, where Sony announced that they'd secured 1 year+ long exclusives for VF4, Tekken 4, DMC, Soul Reaver 2, FFX and MGS2.  Another was (again) with Soulcalibur 3, where a Sony rep even joked the only port the game would see would maybe be to PSP.  Sony securing Tomb Raider games after the original on PS1 was pretty well known too (and killed the Saturn version of Tomb Raider 2), and Sony even started using Lara in it's mascot ad campaigns in the mid 90s.

Asking for "proof of contracts" is a non-starter, that sort of information isn't public.  You won't find it for 360 games either though, which seem pretty generally accepted to be "moneyhatted".

One specific instance of likely contracted exclusivity though was at E3 2001, where Sony announced that they'd secured 1 year+ long exclusives for VF4, Tekken 4, DMC, Soul Reaver 2, FFX and MGS2.  Another was (again) with Soulcalibur 3, where a Sony rep even joked the only port the game would see would maybe be to PSP.  Sony securing Tomb Raider games after the original on PS1 was pretty well known too (and killed the Saturn version of Tomb Raider 2), and Sony even started using Lara in it's mascot ad campaigns in the mid 90s.

How do you know that the titles you mention didnt get exclusive in a deal where Sony would lend workforce or funds development instead of purchasing license?

"Moneyhats" aren't just cash transactions, they usually come in the form of multiple incentives.  Advertising/promotion, distribution deals, reduced royalty fees, co-development/support.  Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all do these things, all the time.  Microsoft spent $10 million on Lost Planet 1's ad campaign, which is probably why we didn't see a PS3 port for a year.  I would say Nintendo pretty clearly put deals in place for MH3, and ditto for Sony with MGS4.

I know that they all do that, its exactly what the article is about. Sony says that they prefer to have a partnership and help with the development of a game instead of purchasing a finish product. So up until now nobody shows any kind of proof that they hadnt been doing that in the PS2 era. The debate wasnt whether Sony gave financial support or not. The debate was how they would handle and give their financial support.