happydolphin said:
As a whole, yes. They are life support in a sense and satisfy a portion of diet like Jay said. If I were to tell you two consoles have respectable exclusives, but one also offers more interesting dl'able games, without deeper knowledge, which would you go for? Also, if I were not a fan of Sony's games, I'd certainly rather a 360 for the alternate kinect/XBLA diet, easy. It's what you would call value-add.
And what of the day when all becomes software-only? What then? |
If you stated XBLA and PSN titles are value adders, then they are only secondary treats or values as you say. They are of no concern in a primary conversation because when you buy an Xbox its usually with Halo, Fable, Forza, Gears, or COD on it. Casual titles are primary on the 360 because it has penetrated Nintendos casual market. The only console who treats casual games a secondary is Sony.
There will always be a difference between a generational game an indy game and the time that changes, the company will most likely have found an investor and made a bigger, better game. Older titles on PSN are slotted under older titles like PS1, PS2 downloadable games, DLC, Add-ons, Disc based Add-ons and more. They are not pitted together in reality.