Do you endorse exclusivity?

[dtewi]

CGI-Quality said:

dtewi said:

CGI-Quality said:

But I still don't get how the gamers "win" if all the resources going into these games go into the SAME games for multiple systems. How do we wi, we're actually losing on games. The bigger the library of one console is, that is unique, the better it is for people looking for a particular system.

Are you guys saying it would be cool for the 360 & PS3 to have a library that's 100% the same? OK, if so, that's your opinion , no problem, then what would be the point of mutliple consoles? I think you guys are not looking at the big picture.

Fortunatley, folks like Nintendo and Sony ARE looking at the larger picture, and know you're console is only as good as it's games (meaning what it offers on it's own). This gen would be pathetic if the Sony was like: "look at what we have, these awesome games. See our buddy over there (the 360), look what he has, oh wait.................he has what we have". "Buy our product though, we're still different" (even though there's virtually no difference in the libraries).

See how that sounds/looks? This idea that "more gamers get to play" is bullocks to me. As long as the system a game is on is available, gamers get to play. It's always been that way. We don't need two consoles with the same damn games to prove that.

The first party games being exclusive and how different the online settings are do cause striking differences in the console.

However, PS3 and 360 are in fact very similar in terms of games, I'd go as far to say more than 2/3 are multi-plat.

Although that 1/3 is a big motivation in deciding consoles and the differences in the hardware itself.

I hope I made sense.

Oh yeah, you're making sense, even if we clash on this. d21lewis makes sense too, I just don't agree with him on this one either. :P

Well, we don't really clash, we're sort of agreeing that exclusivity is good.