Has I said before I'm not defending microsoft....I just say that sony are working in the same way, the only difference is that sony in the past could afford to buy exclusives not they can't beacuse of microsoft....it's easy to be the market leader when you can afford to spend 4 times more than your competitors and as Legend11 said before Nintendo was willing to sell Rare matter of fact, some of their key game diretors, like Martin Hollis for example had lelf Rare some years before microsoft bought it.

Sony are a monopolistic company whose sole intentions were to drive everyone else out of the console business. They failed but that still doesn't mean we can forgive their legacy. They paid billions in todays money buying studios, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars securing exclusive publishing rights and they used aggressive price cuts to force the other companies out of business. Nintendo shows us the kind of profit a legitimate business can make in this industry. We can celebrate the fact that the PS3 is an abject financial failure because its the one thing which secures an open and fair console industry.

Sony's previous overwhelming leadership position likely also meant that "buying exclusives" was cheaper and easier, given they already had that gigantic userbase as the first carrot to dangle.  They bought off Soulcalibur 3 for likely much less than it would've taken to do the same for Soulcalibur 4 for example.

The article says that that actual details of the Nintendo/Square split were yet to be explained but mentions that they ran into roadblocks because of the N64's limits. It also says that you've been lying...the allegations that Sony xbribed square are totally made up.

As for the Saturn...I've explained...they had a history for releasing and then killing off consoles early(Like MS did with the XBox)...unstabble. That's why many 3rd party devs shuned Sega.

No. Microsoft bought majority control of Rare, seeing how Nintendo or any company could not afford it. With MS owner the majority it made no sense for Nintendo to hold onto a company they had no control over.

MS just goes around "Oh DMC exclusive on PS2....mine! Tekken exclusive on PS2....mine! Rare from Nintendo....mine!" Just taking other peoples exclusive. They should put that 50million into a new IP instead of cutting into someone elses exclusies/game studio.

The article actually doesn't say anything regarding Sony deals.  You can quit with the "lying" trolling too, try to elevate and not degrade the discourse please.

And no, Sega didn't have a history of cutting and running at that point.  They'd killed Mega CD and 32X, but those were MegaDrive extensions, not systems in and of themselves.  Nintendo killed similar platform extensions FDS and BSX in pretty much the same manner.  At the time Square moved to PlayStation (1995), Saturn was the next gen console leader... it's only after Square dropped the FFVII bomb publicly that PS1 started to overtake Saturn.  And really, it's only after Saturn that Sega gained the reputation you're talking about.  Saturn actually had amazing 3rd party support upfront.

As for the Rare stuff, you've already been disproven above (Nintendo declined to buy them before Microsoft).  And funny enough, Mikami wanted to port DMC1 to GameCube in 2002 but was blocked due to a Sony exclusivity deal.  Again; KARMA. 

I posted just two paragraphs from an article to try to educate you on the subject and you couldn't even be bothered to read them and instead have chosen to remain ignorant.  One even has someone from Nintendo basically saying that they could have bought the rest of Rare.  Seriously how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're obviously making up shit?

I belive that FF7 cannot be made on other consoles, also MGS but that still doesn't explain all the others....And it's not completley true about sega....even after the 32X (an add-on not a true console) Sega saturn was doing good in its first years excpectially in japan....I don't see why most japan game companies started developing on a new-entry sonsole while they could do it on an enstablished trademark.

Wow. First of all thanks to the slow sales of the PS3 developers didn't feel it was feasible to make an exclusive game for the smallest and most complicated hardware. Second of all SONY did the same shit with the GTA series by having it as a timed exclusive, Soul Caliber3. It seems ur butthurt over all your once Sony exclusives disappearing.

This thread is still going? Wow.

Anyway, Sony hasn't paid for an exclusive.

With the Playstation Sony treated the 3rd party developers as one of their own. Because Sony wanted to learn the industry. Wanted to learn how to make games.

They made it very easy for companies to talk with them and work with them. In turn Sony made it very simple on the 3rd party devs to get tools for the Playstation.
PS1 sold over 105 million units.

PS2 had the track record out of the gate. Sony no longer needed to work so closely with the 3rd parties, but they didn't turn them away.
PS2 sold over 140 million units.

The PS3's problem? Sony became arrogant and an asshole. Treated the industry like it needed Sony to survive.

That was the PS3's problem. Now that Sony has fixed that, look at what's happened.

i agree completely.