Do you endorse exclusivity?

[Rainbird]

BMaker11 said:

CGI-Quality said:

WilliamWatts said:

CGI-Quality said:

WilliamWatts said:
Theres no advantage to exclusivity unless you have a unique console with a unique interface to enable unique possibilities. Theres no real advantage to having a slightly better looking game if thats the only advantage.

If that were the only benefit to being exclusive, you would have a point.

Hardly. When you share similar controls, performance etc it doesn't matter if a game is exclusive. Only Nintendo has made truely successful games which are truely unique to their system. You could pick up and drop any PS3 exclusive barring one or two from the PS3 and place it on the 360 and the average person wouldn't know the difference. Thats why HD exclusivity is about denying people good games and not about the capabilities of the systems.

Which, of course, is strictly your opinion.

There's one teenie, tiny advantage to having an exclusive line-up: DIFFERENTIATING your offering. What the Hell is the point of multiple consoles with the same games? (a lovely question that hardly is answered)

I still haven't got my answer to my question.

Until someone answers this question, you can continue talking about financials and what not, but it's moot. You don't endorse exclusives? Well then if you bought a 360, you just bought a PS3 then. But there are multiple consoles made for a reason.....

I'll give you a short recap on what on my post from a few posts ago.

If a console was like a DVD player, every current gen game could be played on any current gen console, whether it was made by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, whatever.

This would force hardware manufacturers to win over the consumer with the quality of their machine and the features it gives, rather than the game selection, and developers would gain access to a much more vast userbase, allowing for more risks to be taken and more innovation to be tested.

The only ones who don't "win" are the hardware manufacturers who can no longer focus on a one or two competitors, but potentially many more, and possibly lower profits from third party sales (as I doubt the current fee third parties pay to publish a game on a system would be usable in my suggested scenario). But they would still gain sales from the increased userbase, so that would make up some of the lost revenue.

All in all, when developers gain more freedom to experiment and competition is upped for the hardware without limiting what games you can buy, the gamer wins big time. And if one box could run all games, I think we would see some noticable growth in the industry.