I tend to think that funding the game from the beginning of the project allows the developers to not have to account for multiplatform limitations, be more focused on pushing that hardware, and in turn make a better game. Paying for a game after it's been partially developed multiplatform from the get go (or from a game on a multiplatform engine) seems like it doesn't really benefit by pushing the hardware. When exclusivity is bought later on it seems like more of a 'steal,' and is taking away from a game that may have well ended up on the other platform.

Sony does pay for it too, I remember UT3 (though to be fair this was a better deal to us because they actually told us the 360 one was coming later) haze(who knows if they paid, it may have been done to sell off of exclusivity - which it did), and probably to some extent MGS4.

This generation or last two?  Any Sony game can't compete with Nintendo game this generation (Wii Sports Resort, NSMB Wii, Mario Kart Wii, etc....) 

That quote... seems very old. I remember something very similar.

Well I guess enough with the "Sony owns FF7 lol" stuff.

Edit: Yeah... just what i thought.  That quote is from like 2008... why's it being brought up now?

I'd say more "Bested the Dreamcast."

The PS1 had CD media.... but the Dreamcast had DVD like media that was far superior.  Stuff like Final Fantasy jumped to PS1 when DC made more sense.

Established console maker vs New one.

Better system specs vs worse system specs.

Better Media vs worse media.

Why did the big franchises go all PS?

Though yeah, Sony does the same stuff... this was just Sony wanting to take a shot at MS.

I don't like the tactic and I mean when either MS or Sony do it. As far as I'm concerned us gamers are the customer and no company should be paying money to deny us accessing to anything.

If Sony and MS want to make their consoles more attractive then they should focus on exclusives as per this quote. MS have of course indulged in this more than Sony by far, but Sony's hands are lily white either - just less bloodstained.

If it's not a true exclusive then it should never be held back. Personally I'd like to see this actually prevented under ground of fair trading - i.e. have it deemed unfair to pay someone to hold something back from customers availability to buy

Pot Meet Kettle

I disagree.  Let them pay the big bucks for nothing in return (Sure Sony won the generations with PS1 and PS2 but what about now, any short term gain doesn't equal long term).   You might think it is monopolistic practice to deny consumers right to purchase a game on a certain console.  If that is all a company has going for itself then eventually they will meet reality.   Sure Sony and Microsoft made great strides in console gaming by buying out games for their systems but what has that left them with this generation.  Both Sony and Microsoft find themselves at the crossroads.   The only thing I know is Nintendo has it's own studios that a far superior and doesn't give a damn if a third party game goes exclusive since they can produce just as good or better quality. 

Main point is Sony and Microsoft rely on third party more heavily than Nintendo....

Your thinking seems confused there.  I understand your point on Nintendo, and that's why I say if any console provider wants to make it different they need to do it themselves, either with unique hardware - as Nintendo did with Wii - or your own IP - which both Nintendo and Sony do more than MS.

But to figure it's better for the consumer to suffer while a company sorts itself out or waits for some 'comeupance' doesn't make sense to me.  Why on Earth would you want that? 

in sales!.

but you know jonas brothers also sell a lot. like wii fit.

as gamer Uncharted 2 > Wii fit.

It's still a load of bs and you know it. I had already said Sony risks more because they fund smaller, "out of the box" devs, like the Heavy Rain and LBP guys. However, they own the IP thus potentially reap bigger benefits in the long run, both aproaches are valid.

And MS benefits next to nothing for PC. They don't get royalties. Windows isn't marketed for games, Games for Windows has done nothing for sales, nor will it ever do in it's current state. Nobody is gonna say "ohh, i'm gonna buy Windows 7 because of X game", they will buy Windows because they will buy a PC, there's no competition. You can buy an Apple, but that's not a PC, and has pluses and minuses, and people who do aren't that big into "regular" gaming.

And actually, without MS we wouldn't have Gears, Mass Effect, the GTA4 DLC, and Fable, among others.

Like I said, I have a PS3 AND a 360, any exclusivity doesn't affect me, but this isn't a 360 defending post, your post is just like someone said before, sugarcoating and bs, and clearly meant to show Sony in a more positive color for no reason. They both do the same thing through different methods, and I don't consider any one method better, it's just business. Exclusives are exclusives, that's why we have different platforms. Without exclusives what would be the point? Saying Sony screwed anyone over because they paid to get Ghostbusters timed is ridiculous, that's just business, you wanted GB? Buy a PS3 or wait. Same thing with MS stuff.

Just market, just business, and saying otherwise is bs. Sony isn't doing anyone favors by "helping to create new content for gamers", they just want to make money and will do whatever it takes. Case in point: Ghostbusters.