The "total number of exclusives" argument is flawed.

[Serious_frusting]

richardhutnik said:

Onyxmeth said:

How about, instead of this exclusive talk, you look at TOTAL number of games across ALL genres, or at least genres of interest on each system, and see how they stack up, and compare total library vs total library? And look at how good the games are and when they release? Isn't the total library size, and its quality, the most important thing?

Commenting on bolded:

Well if the rest is the same, then all that's left to discuss to compare systems is the exclusives. Comparing total game library once for each doesn't make sense because probably a lot is redundant and the same across two platforms.

When buying a system, do people look to see how many exclusives a system has, or if it plays particular games, and they are well done? I will say, if all things are equal, then people buy the cheaper system. The only time exclusives become relevant is if they are the top game in a given niche. In other words, it is a killer app. The system which has the most exclusive killer apps, can do better. But, beyond this, you do want to look at the total library.

Let's go with a hypothetical system that has NO exclusives, but what it does have is EVERY SINGLE GAME on EVERY system that is not across ALL systems. And these games are games people want to play. Why would this system do worse than a system that has a bunch of mediocre or poor exclusives no one knows about or cares about?

Again, does a system play enough of the top games, at a price people are willing to pay. Isn't that the deciding factor? Not just the number of exclusives?

what a lot of woffl when i was choosing which console to get i listed all the games that are out this gen that i wanted. then i made another list of up coming games i want. then i checked which ones i could get on ps3 and which ones on the 360. the PS3 had more games that i wanted.