Microsoft  have turn 10 ,turn 10 make forza series ,forza series get 9.0 in metacritic life time.MS doesn't  have the internal talent it's needed to create exclusives that?:

1. Sell consoles.
2. Fill out gaming libraries.
3. Make money.

wft,,, more that  3,m of copyes copies sell ,no sell consoles ,no fill gaming libraries ,no make money ???????????????????'...

puffffffffff....

I agree to an extent, though I have two issues with what you say:

1.  Netflix sold a significant amount of 360s in 2008. 

We've discussed this before, and I still feel you have little evidence that this is the case.  Netflix was already available on a variety of platforms at the time, and at that time the 360 had just dropped to $199/299.  I'm pretty sure any such gains in hardware sales during that period would be more attributable to the latter than the former.

2.  It is rare that one title actually sells somebody a system.  What sells systems is the breadth of an entire library, though individual games can be the incentive to finally get somebody interested in a console to buy in.

I can guarantee you the PS3 would still be a distant third if it were not for Sony's first party efforts helping to differentiate the console from the 360, yet looking at individual titles, only a handful have caused a noticeable spike in system sales around launch, like Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2.  If you were to remove the weaker/filler titles - Infamous, MotorStorm, and others - while keeping just those games that had a clearly discernable impact on sales, Sony's library would be considerably weaker for it.  The console would not be doing as well as it is today, nor would SCEWWS have near as many fans as it has now (both of which go hand in hand, I'd say).

Just look at the high number of multiplatform owners this generation (as shown by how far multiplatform sales can swing based on factors like additional content for one version vs another).  People wouldn't be buying PS3s in addition to 360s if not for that exclusive library.

And of course, there are long term benefits to be found through franchise/brand loyalty.  Much like the Mario/Zelda/Metroid fans that stick with Nintendo through thick and thin, Sony has made many new fans thanks to its diverse software efforts this generation.  Microsoft relying more on third parties could set them up for a situation similar to Sony earlier this generation, who got screwed when every third party started ignoring them in favor of 360.  You can't rely on third party franchises long term, and for this reason Sony lost many of the "fans" that were really only interested in  their platform because of GTA/DMC/FF. 

What the hell are you talking about? Microsoft doesnt have enough internal talent... ummm its called a multi billion dollar company, there worst employee would do a better job then this post dictates the writer has.

What an absolute prattish generalisation

I agree with Squilliam on his OP and all his responses.

I think what most of us hardcore gamers, yes I said "hardcore" because if you spend an iota of your life commenting on a gaming site, then you are not casual, forget is the product diversity of each console maker.

Nintendo being the smallest and least diverse console maker has to create killer apps and has the best and most nostalgic 1st party exclusives because it is their bread and butter, their lifeline so to say. If Nintendo does not consistently put out a good video game, then they have nothing else to fall back on.

Sony is bigger than both Microsoft and Nintendo in product diversity. If their video game division fails to turn an annual profit, they can subsidize the loss somewhere else like in music or television. Sony has more and arguably better exclusives than Microsoft for a variety of reasons going back to what made the PS1 a success.

Microsoft, in reality, is not a video game company. They are a consumer electronics company who has climbed to the echelons by creating the most desired platforms for businesses, government, education, and individual consumers to use in their work and play. From Windows to Xbox Live, Microsoft has created platforms that are easily learned if the time is spent learning them and easy to use and develop for if you are willing to spend the money.

Microsoft is staying around because it is a platform that is easier to develop for than Sony or Nintendo. It may not have the killer apps or Crash Bandicoot, but what it allows for is indie developers to show the industry their skills in hopes of creating another Minecraft or landing a gig. Quite unconventional, but Microsoft as a platform company works and they have the profit margins to show for.

Agree with the OP for most parts, BUT I do think exclusive games can sell consoles. Some people buy a system bcause they just want to play only that exclusive game soo badly because it looks so great on the commercials or they played last game on the previous console. Some of them don't really care about the other games coming out. Halo and GT are such exclusives.

But maybe the majority of the consoles sold aren't about the exclusives. There are also weeks we're no exclusive games come out and people still buy them.

I don't agree. 

If this was true then why did Microsoft spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy Rare from Nintendo!?

They have a lot of strengths, but the fact is they don't have the amazing first party lineup that would really set them apart.

Well, if you don't get it, sorry :) I'll try to explain it better.

First of, what does the fact that we're talking about a multi billion dollar company have to do with their internal value in terms of game development? I didn't get it, honestly. Their business model in this field is based on outsourcing, and as Squilliam explained very well, they'll go more and more that road. Is not good, is not bad: it's just their business model. Now, do you think that if they had all they need inside, they would fire them and then hire their services outsourced? Honestly?

Try to look at the big picture instead of adopting a narrow minded position of "heyyy... they have a lot of money... so they're very good... u suck!"...

1. We've seen data posted on the forums here that Netflix subscriber numbers jumped considerably when Netflix was released and we've also seen data showing from Neilson which showed Netflix was a high useage Xbox 360 feature. So whilst Netflix was available on some rare platforms, netflix discs and on PC none of them were as convenient as the Xbox 360 which was plugged right into the TV and gave and easy to use interface. Given the strength and popularity it has to be considered a system seller as it was the first real non cable VOD service on consoles in the United States.

2. I can guarentee if not for specific third party multiplatforms the PS3 would not be mentioned in the same sentence as the Xbox 360 in terms of sales. The game which 'saved' the PS3 way back then wasn't an exclusive it was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Six of the top ten games on the PS3 are multiplatform, one is only exclusive in one major region and probably more than that would be in the top ten if not for Sony bundling of their own 1st party software. If you went further and discounted bundling and looked at the point of origin then likely nine of the ten in the top ten come from 3rd parties anyway. So even though you say the first party efforts were significant the reality is that the system is still dominated by 3rd parties.

The issue with specifically looking at exclusive sales on one platform is that you have to account for a small number of hardcore buyers who pick exclusives over non exclusives due to being either fanboys or possessing multiple consoles (which is why multiplatform sales don't scale 2:1 compared to exclusives or close to it) yet they also buy a reasonably large number of games themselves. You also have to look deeper at the idea that a smaller 1-3M release isn't merely taking a large proportion of the remainder of sales from other titles which would have sold more if not for the presence of their competition. So when you get a title which is both a high seller and high attach rate you get a completely different metric. Large titles have a tendency to create a market for themselves, like GTA or COD since #4 which have grown or remained quite large over time so they simply don't feed from the pool of potential buyers, they bring new buyers in as well.

<System seller----Halo--------Gears-Call of Duty-----Fable-----PGR4---Just another title>

Not accurate at all with positions, but theres a scale where your exclusive is actually worth a lot to the system. The earlier it is or the bigger the attach rate the more important it is as a part of the library.

The vast majority of exclusive titles simply are not effective, even the million sellers or the low multimillion sellers. To create franchise/brand loyalty you have to first create a franchise large enough to stand the test of time. Only one franchise has traveled from the first parties of either Sony or Microsoft and done better in this generation and you know what that is, GT5 still pending. So the idea of go big or go home isn't totally far fetched. Nintendo goes big with their franchises which is why they last so many generations and yet still sell. Sony in this generation was retaining what they could have potentially lost, the other two were actually gaining significant numbers of new users. Their biggest exclusive was as always their Playstation brand name and not any specific software.

How many titles will carry forwards from this generation? The reason why Sony are so quick to drop their old I.P. is that they never make it big enough to actually matter to enough people to be worth the expense and risk of recreating them in a new generation because they are trying to go for more 'huge' I.P rather than carry on a strong series with a shallow impact. This is why I said it has to either sell systems, fill out the game library and make money. The minimum standard for that is 3M sales in most cases although it can be significantly less at the start of a generation when there simply aren't as many titles period.

Not really interested in a colossal back-and-forth about the extent of Netflix' effect on HW sales, but thought I would simply point out that the bold adds absolutely nothing to your argument. The jump in subscribers could be 10% down to current 360 owners taking advantage of a new feature and subscribing to Netflix and 90% down to new consumers purchasing 360s for Netflix (as you try to suggest). Or it could be vice versa. Or it could be 50/50. Ultimately, none of us can say how the split fell, so it's just not a cogent point.

Again Squilliam u´re wrong

The game that helped a lot to the ps3 was Metal Gear Solid 4, a system exclusive.

And five of the top 10 x360 games are multiplatform, including 3 Halo´s (FUCK YEAH 3 Fuckin Halo´s) common only the name Halo can guarantee you a lot of millions of copies sold, even the Halo 3 ODST is in top 10 (admit ODST doesnt have too much quality). And then we have Two Gears of War in the top 10, Gears of War 1 and 2. Not to mention that a lot of exclusive M$ games are still in bundles (Forza Motorsport 3 and Halo 3 ODST).

Also You have to mention that in most of the games more than 50% of the total sales for the games for 360 (including exclusives and non-exclusives) are from the Americas, Just like for Halo 3, like 75% of the game sales became from the Americas, the Call of Duty´s, Gears of war´s and the other big games for 360 have like more than 50% of totales sales became from the Americas.

Only Halo and Call of Duty are now system sellers.