My one issue with the "exclusives" argument

[sales2099]

kupomogli said:

sales2099 said:

So really, thats an admission that PS can't stand up by itself against Xbox?

Because in a strict PS vs Xbox debate, neglecting these types of games seems silly. Bringing in a PC to fight PS battles.....thats what these types of replies sound like.

The 360 sales of Left 4 Dead and especially Minecraft shows that there is a big market for console only gamers. These titles clearly matter.

Playstation has better games without the need to rely on PC titles. 

I replied to you before that you're missing out on a lot of games by not playing games on PC and you stated that "you're basically saying your console doesn't have enough content to keep you interested."  It's less the PS3 or even the 360 if I was an owner doesn't have good games, but more than I'm missing out on a lot of great games by not owning a PC.

Because I'm a PC owner, I can play those 360 "exclusive games" like Torchlight, Limbo, Left 4 Dead, Bastion, Minecraft, Alan Wake, etc.  By not being a PC owner, I can't play new games like Torchlight 2,  Legend of Grimrock, Rome 2, etc, older games like, XCOM UFO Defense, Might and Magic, Heroes of Might and Magic, Syndicate, Baldur's Gate, etc.

I can go and say the same thing to you that you need a Wii and a Wii U to satisfy your gaming needs because your 360 doesn't have enough good games. By using your logic, purchasing a competitors console is far worse than playing games on the PC, because unlike a competitors console, I use my PC for more than just playing games.  Hell.  The least of what I do on my PC is playing games, and the only time i ever buy PC games is when I can get them dirt cheap.  I actually just got Torchlight 2 for $3.75.  Because there's so much great content on the PS3, I can wait for prices on PC to go on sale for ridiculously prices before purchasing.

Not just PC though.  I shouldn't collect for the Vita or the PSP right?  Since the PS3 should be enough.  So you're technically right.  I have Wii, DS, 3DS, PSP, Vita, and PS3 games this gen, as well as PC games.  I have many games spanning multiiple generations whether they're NES games, Genesis games, etc.  I should be content with my library of around 100 PS3 games.   

Just saying 360 has more 70-79, 80-89, and 90+ games on metacritic. Take that however you wish.

It isn't about whether or not you personally game on a PC. Its the simple concept that if you are ever comparing 2 consoles, and ONLY those 2, you limit the comparisons to what each can do that the other can't, disregarding all else and whatever gaming preferences you have.

The Wii/WiiU part is again referring to a personal gaming taste matter, when it actually has 0 bearing on a 360 vs PS3 comparison. What people don't see is that such a comparison is not personal, its completely unbiased and the results are what they are, our personal tastes have nothing to do with what each has that the other doesn't.

You can game on whatever you want, but if you enetr a internet topic where 360 and PS3 are compared, you stick to that criteria, and only that cirteria. How you interpret that data is up to you based on your personal gaming platforms, but the results are what they are if limited to a strict comparison.