Exclusives?

Oh, the arguments of fanboys. For nearly two years, the 360 loyalists shouted over to the PS3 side "we bought our system for games, not watching movies!", and then the PS3 loyalists shouted back "where's MGS4 on YOUR console?". For a while, Metacritic score reigned supreme, but then fanboys sorta gave up on that one once both HD consoles' games began to even out. Then it was all about sales, but that's starting to lose steam, too (thankfully).

Now, it's all about exclusives.

We're back to copypasta-ing our list of exclusives. "How many exclusives do YOU have, 360?" yell the PS3 loyalists. "Plenty. How many crappy multiplats do YOU have, PS3?" yell back the 360 crowd.

And this is just insane. First of all, exclusives matter! This argument I constantly hear of "I can play multiplatform games just fine. Who needs exclusives?" is one of the dumbest I've heard in my life. It's like saying "I don't want to play great video games. I'm proud of being able to play fewer games than the other guys!" What? This is pure fanboyism. Who WOULDN'T want to play more games?

Another thing, quit with this ridiculous "console exclusive" nonsense, fanboys. X-COM isn't an exclusive, 360 kids. DC Universe and FF14 aren't exclusive to the PS3, either, Sony kids. Exclusive means AVAILABLE ON ONLY ONE PLATFORM. It's really that simple. Exclusive has never ever ever ever in any previous gaming generation meant "playable on 360 and PC, but not on Wii and PS3" (or an equivalent). Stop making up terms like "console exclusive". It's pointless, because anyone can make up these terms. Did you know that Black Ops is a Sixaxis exclusive? That's RIGHT! Ps3 is the ONLY console with SIxaxis that can play Black Ops!!! OMG! And Mass Effect 2? It's a non-DLC console exclusive on the 360, because 360 is the ONLY CONSOLE where the DLC doesn't come bundled with the game. Exclusive! Exclusive! Sheesh, it reminds me of Turn 10 shouting "definitive!" into our ears over and over again until we all passed out (or bought into it).

But don't get carried away. We all love to twist the labels in our favor. Anyone hear how the 360 had no exclusives in 2010? Well, beside Halo: Reach, Fable III, Alan Wake, all the Kinect titles, what did 360 gamers have to play? Uh, PLENTY! Are exclusives the only video games people are allowed to play? Now, don't get me wrong: each console should have a healthy dose of exclusives, but why can't people mostly play multiplat games? I just don't get it. I mainly play on PS3 but there are plenty of PS3 exclusives that I do not enjoy (Motorstorm, GT5, The Show, Valkyria Chronicles, and more). The reality is that there are just as many highly rated mutliplats as there are exclusives on all the consoles combined. So, doesn't it make sense that a person is allowed to enjoy multiplats on their console?

So, what's this fuss over exclusives? Are gamers going to turn this into another Metacritic/"AAA score" war? Is this going to become another sales war? Or, are we just gonna play some games?

[BrianG]

Hey, I love playing me some games. I mainly play PS3, and I really enjoy the exclusives, but I also enjoy some multiplats as well.

But believe me, when Gears 3 comes out you know I'll be picking up the Xbox controller to play that. Just like when God of War 3 came out, my bro picked up the PS3 controllers (He's the xbox guy in the house).

I enjoy games, but exclusives are good, especially if you don't own both consoles or have the privilege of playing both. Exclusives might be the deciding point.

EDIT: Almost forgot, Merry Christmas.

[HolyOrangeCows]

"So, what's this fuss over exclusives?"

It's the entire reason to choose to own a platform, that's why it's a big fuss. The more exclusives, the more value to that system. Why have a system if all of its best games are on OTHER platforms?

That's why I bought a PS3 in '08, even though I owned a 360. The 360 was offering very little that was unique to itself, so I bought a system with its own original content. And honestly, that fact hasn't changed much in the past 2 years. What didn't gravely disappoint on the 360 in 2010 (ie SSC and Crackdown 2) wasn't unique to the system. And no, I'm not interested in another Halo (especially one that starts taking so many cues from Call of Duty) or a repetitive "horror" (If you can call it that when the game makes sure that you're majorly aware of every threat) title that makes you buy DLC to complete the story. The 360's best of the year were indie titles.

Exclusive games DEFINE consoles. Exclusives are quite important.
If there isn't a battle for the best exclusives, things start to stagnate, and we don't see as many great games.

[kancerkid]

"Why have a system if all of its best games are on OTHER platforms?"

I have a video game system to play games. I almost bought my system based on the price at the time.Are exclusives part of the equation? ...Somewhat, yet hardly as much as it is for some other people, apparently. I don't buy my system to play the 2-3 good exclusives per console, because there are already 15 multiplats that are guaranteed greatness every year.

Oh, and when one system has multiplats that tend to perform better on one console, that sort of makes the equation somewhat better.

PS - I don't have like 600 dollars to spend on games every year. I only play like 5 games a year, and they are usually games that came out 2 years ago. Yea, being a physics major does that.

[GWAVE]

Exclusives tend to be "system sellers", too, so while not every exclusive is going to appeal to everyone, there's the added dynamic of the developer of said exclusive trying to sell you a box with their game. With a multiplat, all that matters is selling the game, regardless of the console you buy it on.

As such, exclusives tend to receive that extra little oomph that multiplats don't. For instance, Halo's online servers have always always always been more stable and better supported than Call of Duty.

[BlackBusterCritic]

@kancerkid, if you cared about playing Multiplats on the best platform, you'd have a PC.

[kancerkid]

@BlackBuster

I game on PC, but mostly stuff that came out pre-2000. Yea, I know, PC gaming is supposedly "less expensive" than console gaming, but I have no desire to put together a PC and 60 FPS does not really wow me.

If they can do RDR and Forza 3 on consoles, I do not really know why I would need a PC.

[ThanatosDMC]

Completely agree with GWAVE. People that adamantly defend the words "console exclusive" sure are funny though.

[starchild]

What's funny is that it's the ps3 fanatics that are trying to redifine things.

I have been gaming as long as gaming has been around and I know for a fact that the term "console exclusive" has been in use for quite some time. It wasn't invented by "xbots" as some of you claim. The gaming press has long recognized the distinction of console exclusives.

It is you ps3 fanboys that are being willfully obtuse. If you don't recognize the impact console exclusives have and want to pretend that they are no different than any full multiplatform game you are just being blinded by bias.

Obviously console exclusives are different from both single-platform exclusives as well as full multiplatform games, thus the term helps to make a useful distinction.

That is, unless you are a rabid fanboy whose apparent sole purpose in life is to brag up "your" console and minimize the value of the other consoles any way you can. Which is exactly why ps3 fanboys have started to attack the concept of console exclusives this generation.

However, ps3 fanboys have shown themselves to be completely inconsistent in this regard. They only treat the PC as a legitimate platform when it suits their agenda. For example, when they want to act like console exclusives have no value because, you know, the PC is a platform too. But when a freaking console game gets awarded best graphics they make excuses for such nonsense, saying that the consoles are only competing with each other.

Gamespot awarded GOW3 best technical graphics, which is shameful because about a half a dozen PC games easily destroy GOW3 on a technical level.

So which is it? Either the PC is a legitimate platform that we are going to pretend is not fundamentally different from the consoles or we are going to recognize that the PC is a gaming platform, but one that is different from consoles in some fundamental ways.

If the PC is essentially just another console as you guys sometimes pretend, then don't make excuses for why an inferior console game was awarded best technical graphics when everybody knows that PC games destroy console games in terms of graphics.

Oh, one more thing. You guys often repeat this meme about "exlusive means available on only one platform", but this isn't really correct. If you define the arena within which something is exclusive the term is still being used correctly.
For example, Toyota could advertise that their sedans are the only sedans to exclusively offer rear side airbags. (this is not true, but the analogy is what is important) This doesn't mean that said feature is only found on one model of their sedans, nor does it mean that such a feature isn't found on SUVs or other types of vehicles. It would still be a proper use of the word because you have defined the arena (sedans) and, more importantly, the distinction makes sense, ie most people who are shopping for sedans are not going to suddenly go get an SUV just because it has that feature.

So, does the same principle apply in the gaming world? Yes, it clearly does. Consoles have distinct properties that distinguish them from a PC. There is obviously some overlap between PC gamers and console gamers (such as myself), but I know a great deal of PC gamers that don't care about consoles, and I have also seen many console gamers that don't want to deal with the perceived hassles of PC gaming. Therefor the console arena is a valid distinction. The fact that there is overlap doesn't mean that the distinction goes away. That is why console exclusives are a distinct category from both full multiplatform games as well as single-platform exclusives.

[ThanatosDMC]

"best technical graphics"

Probably because everything under the hood of the PS3 is 5-7 yrs old tech and it's able to make a game look that good. There is no limit graphically on PCs as PCs vary widely in how it's games could look dependent on the hardware inside it. You could clearly see the difference of awesomeness in high end builds of Crysis from this year compared to last year's via youtube.

"There is obviously some overlap between PC gamers and console gamers (such as myself), but I know a great deal of PC gamers that don't care about consoles, and I also seen many console gamers that don't want to deal with the perceived hassles of PC gaming. Therefor the console arena is a valid distinction."

There is not an obvious overlap between PC gamers and console gamers (such as myself), but I know a great deal of PC gamers that do care about consoles, and I have also seen many console gamers that do want to deal with the perceived hassles of PC gaming. Therefor the console arena is not a valid distinction.

Do you see how terrible that "if, then, to therefore" statement that was?

"The fact that there is overlap doesn't mean that the distinction goes away."

Your facts are based on your opinions and presumptions.

"That is why console exclusives are distinct category from both full multiplatform games as well as single-platform exclusives."

If i could play, Fallout 3 on the PC, the PS3, and the 360 is it not multiplatform?

Proof: I could play Fallout 3 on the PS3 and the PC, then it's multiplatform so it's not exclusive. I could play Fallout 3 on the PS3 and the 360, then it's multiplatform so it's not exclusive. Therefore by the transitive propeties of this arguement, i could also say that I could play Fallout 3 on the PC and the 360, then it's multiplatform so it's not exclusive.

^Same idea. A console version of a game that is played the same way, has the exact same content, story, gameplay, and whatever else is multiplatform from it's PC counterpart which is the same thing as the console version.

You use sedans and SUVs to try to prove your point but the fact they're still both under the category of car or a simpler term "vehicle" makes them similar. They're not the same in content (hardware spec) and the stuff they could do, but they still do what they do what vehicles do best and that's to be vehicles. In this argument, the sedan and SUV could be the PS3, 360, and the PC. They're different inside and out, they have different softwares, however they could all play the same exact game (multiplatform games) and are under the category of gaming platform.

[VenomProject]

tl;dr

[ThanatosDMC]

Short version:

Anything on PC that can be played the same exact way as the console version or vice versa is multiplatform.

Just had to break it down so starchild could understand, but if he doesnt then i wont say anything anymore.

I wrote it partially asleep at 5am at work so im not sure if it makes sense.

[CWMR]

I'll break it down so you can understand it, ThanatosDMC. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the PS3 fanboys on this site. What starchild wrote made perfect sense and your response made absolutely no sense. Haha you were half asleep when you wrote it?...nice excuse.

[Cole_Train]

Just wanted to point this out.

"Another thing, quit with this ridiculous "console exclusive" nonsense, fanboys. X-COM isn't an exclusive, 360 kids"

"Anyone hear how the 360 had no exclusives in 2010? Well, beside Halo: Reach, Fable III, Alan Wake, all the Kinect titles, what did 360 gamers have to play"

Fable III is on PC, just not released yet.

"And this is just insane. First of all, exclusives matter!"

Exclusives matter to an extent. Having MORE exclusives means nothing, having exclusives that appeal to you is what matters. PC has more exclusives than any other platform (well besides maybe some of the Nintendo platforms), but I don't game on PC, I don't like gaming with a keyboard and mouse and most PC exclusives don't interest me.

PS3 has TONS of exclusives, but most of them don't appeal to me or I have zero interest in. 360 doesn't have many exclusives, but I'm interested in more of those overall mainly because the selection isn't as high as the PS3. What really matters if the platform itself. How is the UI, what type of controller is it, how comfortable is it to use, what features does that platform offer, how many of your friends play on this platform, etc. Me personally, I'm more of a multiplayer type of guy. The only single player games I really enjoy and will play for months are RPG games like Oblivion for example. So I'm looking for mostly great multiplayer gameplay that I can enjoy with my friends most of the time. So yes exclusives do matter, but they don't mean everything.

[nskrishna2]

At the end of the day its just the choice of the game which a person wants to play...in this regard, i do not care which console i own,cuz both have awesome games...i own a PS3...and borrow my friends xbox if i wanna play..simple

[LunaticBrandon]

While FF14, DC Universe Online and X-COM are not exclusives they do matter. If you're a console only gamer who is only able to afford one console or doesn't see the point in buying a second one these games change your opinion on which to get. Exclusives help you pick a platform, but recently they are more for giving fanboys an erection. I'm mostly looking forward to multiplatform titles next year and I prefer a platform that has plenty of upcoming exclusives.

[starchild]

That's how I feel. Most of the games I want next year are multiplatform games. In my opinion many of Sony's first party games have been kind of average in my opinion. I'm not talking about Uncharted 2, which is excellent, I'm talking about games like inFamous, Resistance 2, MAG, etc.
Yes, I have played those games and they were ok, but basically I always felt like I wished I was playing something else.

I think PS3-only gamers tend to way underappreciate multiplatform games. Out of all my favorite games this generation a majority of them are multiplatform games.

[toaster]

Some of my favorite games are multiplats. I don't really care about exclusives as they tend to be a penis measuring contest between equally small penis sized gamers. How many exclusives will people actually buy? I'd say about %60. Less when you're underage and still live with your parents' money. As an adult I have the freedom to choose what I buy when I buy it, no restrictions on if my mommy and daddy say "this game has too much violence and rated M!!" but of course parents these days don't give a shit about game ratings.

That doesn't mean I don't play exclusives though. I just don't play ALL of them. The main argument PS3 gamers have is "PS3 has more exclusives!" but will they buy ALL of them? Probably not. I don't buy all the PC exclusives. I'd have to be ultra rich to do that. Luckily PC games cost $10-$20 less than console games and prices of multiplat games drop 20% within 2 to 3 weeks.

[Joule]

Don't mind toaster, he is a troll.

[TheLastGuardian]

Yea, multiplats are great and all but, If both systems can play them then you should buy the console with the better exclusive lineup. I could care less about the console war. I only rave about the PS3 to help out people who don't know which system to get. Sony first party games just interest me alot more than multiplats most of the time.

[ubiquitious]

"Another thing, quit with this ridiculous "console exclusive" nonsense, fanboys. X-COM isn't an exclusive, 360 kids"

I think people overlook the whole 'console exclusive' thing way too often. For example, LBP2 and Killzone 3 will both be on PSP(2), they just haven't been released yet. Sure, SONY is getting money no matter what, but those games are not exclusive to the Playstation 3.

[mastiffchild]

Yes, yes they are. Are you seriously suggesting calling the PSP version of LBP the SAME game as what we have on the PS3 Because it ISN'T-not even close and neither will LBP2 be. The thought of a remotely playable KZ3(when KZ has only ever appeared in overhead shooter form as Lib for the handheld)on a handheld is even more ludicrous.

FF14, DCU, Xcom or Fable3, however, are almost exactly the same game on the consoles as they are on the PC so calling them "exclusive" isn't on. KZ3, however, like Gears2 and the true form of LBP(which lost a lot going to PSP as the way a lot of LBPers play is n4player online co-op which, along with a lot of creation aspects and the fact it's totally 2D on PSP, made the games entirely different monsters)will be a proper exclusive.

Console Exclusive" is a BS term but only IF the games are nearly identical on the platforms they appear on. The DS version of COD (if it was only released on DS and, say, the PS3)would have to be considered a different game as it's console counterpart and as such would, Hypothetically, be a kind of exclusive.All it usually shares is the bare bones of the plot with everything major being different just like it is with the games you describe.

Honestly, insinuating that KZ3 and LBP2 aren't true exclusives is reaching a great deal.

[blackburn5]

I think the fact of the matter that many people avoid is that the reason why exclusives matter is that multiplats can be played on either system. 360 people go on and on about grass,shadows,color, wheels, dirt, doors, houses and any other insignificant thing and claim that their version is superior. But If fanboys didn't hunt them down and harp on about it most people would be to busy playing the game to see any of these things. In short, exclusives give you a reason to buy one console over the other. Why should I buy a 360 because a multiplat looks 2% better when I can have all the exclusives Sony has coming up and still play most multiplats? I will have twice or even three times the games a 360 owner has. So I think people are not boasting that the 360 has 'no games' just a lot of things you can just as easily play on a PS3 or PC.So why bother to buy a 360?

[starchild]

See, you are apparently a single console gamer and you can't see outside that little box.

Many of us aren't going to pick just one console. Personally, I have a PC and all the consoles.

Each of them has games that I wanted to play, which is why I bought them.

Oh, and you might tell yourself that the difference in multiplatform games between the two consoles is a miniscule 2%, but that is just a lie. I have played and compared lots of games and the differences are usually not that small. Dead Space 2 is one of the few that would fit that description, but accross the board it is more often not the case.

So yes, that is one of the strengths of the 360 and one of the reasons I like it. When a certain PC game has too much DRM or is not available on the PC I invariably find that the 360 versions look better than the PS3 versions.

The PS3 has some great exclusives like Uncharted 2 and that is why I own it.

So, why bother buying a 360? Because it has some great exclusives of its own like Alan Wake, Gears of War 2, Halo Reach, Tenchu Z and Fable 3 and is the best console to play multiplatform games. I almost will never play a multiplatform game on the PS3, they nearly always go to either the PC or the 360.

[Lyr1c]

You can't be serious.

You're going to pay for xbox live, to play a multiplatform title on the 360 (when SOME barely look better than the PS3 version), instead of paying NOTHING to play a slightly worse version on the PS3, or playing the best version on the PC...With Mods included......yet again, for free.

And the point still stands, that not all exclusives look better on the 360. Few games look better on the PS3, while most are more or less equal.

[Xbox360PS3AndPC]

In The End Its Always Going To Be Multiplatform > Exclusives Because If It Was Just Exclusives Then A Console Would Have Had A Low amount Of Games