| RAZurrection said: Getting the superior version of almost every multiplatform game. |
While most past multiplatform games have been proven to perform better on the 360 when you compare them side-to-side, they are usually so close as to offer the same experience to the gamer if you just happen to play them on their own.
The end line is always that exclusives make all the difference, and given their quality I bet that exclusives make for much more than 10% of most PS3 owners. I for one only own exclusives, though I could grab a used copy of RE5 in the future. And not because I don't buy multiplatforms, but simply because the lineup of exclusive games was the best for my tastes and - I bet - for those of many others.
I'd be glad if Capcom made a better effort with their engine on the PS3, but meanwhile I can live with slightly worse shadows in RE5, but playing Uncharted, MGS4 and LBP. Because i can't do that on the 360, it makes the PS3 100% worthwhile, you see. And for my $400 I got wireless, HDD, free online gaming and a top-tier Blu-Ray player, so it was also cost-effective against building up the setup I wanted on a 360.
As you see, what is worthwhile and what is redundant is all a matter of perspective.
By the way, I'd be curious to know how exactly half of PS3's exclusives could be considered terrible. The only one that comes to mind is Lair, really.
Back to OP:
In a sense, yes, that's the whole point of MS' adventuring into the console market, and they accomplished their goal. The utter dominance that Sony had last generation ended, and we're back to what has always been true, ie that there are several big players in the field.
I wonder how young is anybody who finds Sony not being the end-all brand for a console so baffling. Sony was not a big name in gaming a few generations ago.
