I did give a good reason: serves no purpose.

As for why I said remove remasters and old gen games and indies, largely steam available, is because when someone sits down to  measure out the worth of buying a new console (for its games) he's going to look at and judge based on the exclusive AAAs (in general I would judge the entire worth of a console on said AAA exclusives because just about everything else is available elsewhere for less, with bigger libraries already built). Remasters, indies, and old gen games aren't real movers more like conveniences, and if the number of games was even remotely important then everyone and their dog would have bought a WiiU... which obviously hasn't happened. (Would you accept this list, tomorrow, if Microsoft shovelled XBLA full with a billion games from steam?)

So what is the worth of the PS4 and X1? Their AAAs and their promise of AAAs.

Not necessarily.

If one music service said, "we have almost twice as many songs as the next leading service," what would you do?  Perhaps you'd dig deeper, find out if those missing songs are important to you or not, or perhaps you'd be like the average consumer and just go, "wow, really?"

Volume is a factor and one that is used often in advertising.  Satellite and cable television providers are constantly hammering that point in commercials, where they show a brief look at a bunch of tiny logos, even though most people will never watch half those stations.  More that that, though, it's the suggestion that you'll miss out in the future, as well, if you extrapolate the trend.  Information like this swirls around in the unconscious of many consumers, who often make ill-informed decisions.

The real story here, though, in my opinion, is that Microsoft got its ass kicked by Sony in terms of working hard on digital content.  They simply fell asleep at the wheel.  Maybe it was hubris, maybe they just weren't ready for launch, but they got their tickets punched.  What makes that so surprising is that they're the ones who did the same thing to Sony with the 360.  It's a point worth discussing.

Ahh, so then we do agree! Retro wins!

To the trash with the PS4, the X1, the WiiU! To the FamiCom we go.

PS: You went in a full circle. Retro suddenly isn't full opinion, you just turned it to fact.

That's a lot of goddamn conditions and restrictions.

It serves a very clear purpose. To show that the PS4 has twice as many games available as the Xbox One. Whether you like it or not is a different thing.

First, if I'm going to choose one of these consoles, then this list gives a better idea of which one to go for. And no, removing indies and multiplats is not an option because if you're going to buy either of these consoles you have to take all games into account, especially on gaming forums like this one where many people care about those games.

Second, it proves that the idea that the PS4 has no games is unfounded, especially when compared to the Xbox One. What you're saying would make more sense if there was a meme going around saying that "the Xbox One has no games". But there isn't, it seems there is a notion floating around that the Xbox One has a better and broader lineup than the PS4 when that's not the case.

You really shouldn't mind me, here, I am just having fun taking the discussion back to retro. :P

That said, I do know that volume is a "seller" in a sense but, all the same, we've seen this gen that volume is also obviously not a seller (see: WiiU, if we brought it into this list it'd be hundreds vs... fifties). As for what M$ did, its their draconian XBLA... are we really surprised by their digital offerings right now? With the X360 they really came out of the gates gunning and desperate, this time around... you're probably right, it is some degree of the hubris that has been hanging over the X1 and each failure its experienced.

I feel like more people should point out (someone has, but not enough) that the reason PS4 has so many more is because of more digital releases, not retail. At retail, there's little difference. Then there's the point that the scores across both systems are generally more in the mixed area than positive.

Indie games are GAMES.I should always be counted in a console's library.

No, actually that was never implied at all. I said retro has a larger pool, if 5% of games are ever good, then obviously the larger pool will have more better games. That's no different from me saying that a bag of marbles has more marbles in it than a bag of no marbles. This is not opinions, at all, its just numbers.

You've actually done nothing, then, to argue against this other than to say it is my opinion... which is odd, because its not really an opinion, its just numbers. A list, some would say. Like I said, and as has been said, if the length of the list mattered, then retro would always win... and we just got done saying that, apparently, it was the length of the list that mattered.

To the FamiCom!

Like I said, to the FamiCom! (And that this list is pointless. Also WiiU wins by a factor of 10!)

;)