You're just making things up, aren't you?

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.

isnt it because they own the movie, so y not? 

? I dont understand your assumption, it only makes sense that when you have educated employees working in a company, they take the best decision to favorise their whole company.

Huh?

Don't know where this thread is going, but im going to make things simple and say...

I can now play games like Star Ocean: The Last Hope and Bioshock 1 and 2 on my PS3, that makes me a happy gamer. (Former payed for exclusives for whatever reason MS may have had.)

And if i so chose to, i could play Final Fantasy XIII on my 360 now, aswell games like DMC4, GTA and what not, all former PlayStation brand exclusives.

The only thing i see here is, per se, sony invests on 2nd party and 1st party exclusives and rarely if at all ever on 3rd part games, so in that sense i so no hypocrisy whats so ever, however MS has been known to pay for 3rd party exclusiveity in the past, be it for funding reasons or what have you.

basiclly speaking, MS has had a semi-bad habit this gen by having many timed exclusives left and right, im sure Sony has done this to aswell even though i personally dont know of any, but for the most part there goal has been working on 2nd and 1st party exclusives overall.

the only 3rd party game that i can think of that is a complete shot in the dark is Versus XIII, but even that is a big IF because we know nearly nothing about it.

In conclusion... in my honest opinion, as far as console exclusives go, i believe both MS and Sony from the get go should have 100% reinforced 2nd and 1st part support instead of securing 3rd party titles, that way everyone is happy as far as 3rd parties go.

However... again, just my opinion here... confirmed or not, MS has most likely handed large sums of money to guys like Square enix, Bioware, Valve and the like to some kind of extent.

They shouldn't have done that, because now most are available on PC and/or PS3, if MS would have made games like Lost Planet and Bioshock 2nd party exclusives secured like Sony did with Demons Souls and White Knight Chronicles it would be a whole differnt ball game.

The only 2nd part titles i can think of that MS fully funded, published and supported were LO from mistwalker and IU from Tri-ace/SE oh and maybe gears of war and awesome effect to but those also seem to be strong 2nd party MS only IP's however i dont know who publishs them so im not 100% sure on this...

Pfft... at anyrate, theres a fine line between 100% support of games over funding support of games, if the IP still belongs to the 3rd or 2nd party publishers there so called "exclusveity contract" is up in the air. it all comes down to greed in the end, though exclusives DO matter.

For example i bought my 360 mainly for Star Ocean: the last hope, but also Bioshock 1 and Lost Planet aswell as Awesome Effect and a few other Niche exclusives games like IU and Project Slypheed...

Present day nearly all of the above is now on PS3, the only ones that could be counted as semi-non official 2nd party and 3rd party IP's are IU, ME Franchise, Project Slypheed, DoA Extreme, N3 Franchise, Guilty Gear 2, Kingdom under fire, and quite afew more that i forget.

Long story short, hypocrisy or no, exclusives define any kind of platform, and i believe both MS and Sony has done a fine job at acquiring them, they've exchanged blow for blow this gen, MS got lots of original playstation only franchises such as Devil may cry, Grand theft auto, Final fantasy, Star ocean, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Guilty Gear while Sony took many of 360's NEW IP former titan "thought to be exclusive" games such as bioshock, lost planet, enchanted arms, eternal sonata, etc, etc... along with taking back former 360 exclusives such as star ocean and vesperia.

Damn that was alot of typing and im normally to lazy to do that, so i hope we can all agree that everyone gets a little hypocrital sometimes, well alot when it comes to making money so obviously they'll throw all kinds of words around.

When all is said and done, each consoles has its own wonderful list of exclusives while still having alot of 3rd party support on both considering the Wii is way ahead, in my opinion i find it a blessing they the dual HD's are still getting alot of major big franchise names rather then jthe dev's and companies flocking to highest selling console this gen.

Enjoy your great games gents, and dont ponder on what should be reinforcement towards owning one or both HD consoles.

thank you for your time gents.

Sony today isnt very keen on buying third party exclusive but they were doing this alot back in the ps1/2 days hence why we are calling them hypocrites.

Yes Sony own the license rights from buying Columbia Pictures.  Still this doesn't change the fact that the game was scheduled for simultaneous multi-platform release, until Sony intervened by buying the publishing rights to release the game in Europe on the Sony consoles first.  I'm guessing that instead of Atari paying for licensing fees/royalties that they cut Sony a deal.