the ps3 has got the momentum now and as more and more contracts finish with microsoft more games r gna be coming over to ps3 right now this kind of is the perfect timing.

Without Sony, some of these games wouldn't exist at all, or at least not in near the state they do currently.  That's not detracting from anything.  Yeah, you need a ps3 to play them, but it's better than nobody getting to play them.  That's where my entire point comes from.

And I didn't say Sony only adds nor that Microsoft only subtracts from this equation.  I only pointed out the difference between what Sony and MS does as highlighted in the OP and in Seece's first post.  Both companies do their share of creating new content and inhibiting the availability of content.  Sony screwed people over by making Ghostbuters timed exclusive in Europe, and Microsoft had a heavy hand in creating one of the best new IPs of this generation, Gears of War.  Remove Sony from the equation and more people would've gotten to play Ghostbusters sooner, which is good.  Remove MS from the equation and Gears of War would not have been the technical showcase for 360 it ended up being, which is bad.

Helping to create new content for gamers to play = awesome
Inhibiting the availability of content from gamers = sucks

Two completely different strategies, one that's great and what that isn't.  Doesn't matter who does it, one sucks, and the only reason Sony doesn't do the latter as much as they used to is because they now have enough first party studios that they don't feel the need to.  Last gen they were moneyhatting left and right.

Also, attacking the poster instead of attacking the argument shows a bit about you, too.  ;)

Goodbye.

Maybe the Sony exec is right. Microsoft should buy studios like Sony does and ensure the games never go onto another console. With the billions that Microsoft is making in profit they could easily do just that and then we could listen to that exec praise them.

I would like it if they did this.  It only spurs competition, and considering first party titles are often loss leaders to a degree (ie, software designed to show off technology and sell systems moreso than just sell), we could see some amazing games coming form the Microsoft camp.  Just look at what Gears has become with Microsoft's involvement.

We likely wouldn't have Killzone if it weren't for Halo, much like we wouldn't have Forza if it weren't for Gran Turismo.  Competition between the big three leads to some of the best games each gen, from Super Mario, Super Smash Bros., and the Legend of Zelda to Halo, Fable, and Forza to Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, and God of War.

In a way, it hasn't made any difference for you as a 360 gamer. It's not like those games wont have been released on 360 when they were. It's pretty much just a delay or absence of the ps3 version. No net gain or loss for a 360 owner but a loss for a ps3 owner i.e, its more like M$ paid to cripple the competition rather than to boost their fan rating

Maybe you should recheck Nintendo on this statement.   Nintendo doesn't make loss leaders they make sellers...

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

it wasn't exactly that.Atari didn't have a publisher and wasn't keen on doing it themselves cause they feared they could get into finanacial trouble so sony did it and got a timed exclusive

Who cares that Atari didn't want the liability? Those sweet angels at Sony have done in the past what they're accusing others of doing now, it is no different. 

A quick google search even pulls up a quote that contradicts their strategy - “We’re committed to bringing the PlayStation family the biggest and best gaming experiences first,” Mark Hardy, European Product Marketing director at SCEE, says.

Well it appears that their committment, unlike their hypocrisy, only goes so far.

In the end, 'Joe Gamer' not on the Internet forums i.e. the majority doesn't care - they only care about an image perceived that Sony gets games later than Microsoft.  Yes it's cock blocking and it sucks but they're following the same strategy that Sony used to get them to the top in the first place.