By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I agree with the point of the OP. These library comparisons are about the value of the console's library. Thing is, value is going to be measured differently by different people. It's inherently subjective. For PC gamers, 360/PC multiplats aren't going to increase the value of the 360. But for non-PC gamers, any 360 games not available for the PS3 would.

I believe most gamers fall into the latter. Hardcore, internet gamers may say they use their PC to play 360/PC multiplats (which may very well be true), but the large number of people do not. Most gamers do their serious gaming on dedicated gaming platforms. So for the majority, a game on the 360 not available on the PS3 would be as valuable as a true exclusive, since the 360 would be the only way to enjoy the title in a way that they want. Therefore, for these people, such a title shouldn't be disregarded as if they hold no value.

If you're discussing with someone who explicitly asserts that they do or don't have a gaming PC, then you can adjust the discussion accordingly. But when discussing the console's value on internet forums, I believe 360/PC multiplats should be listed as valuable by default if trying to be as objective as possible. Why? Because there is only way to be as objective as possible over an issue so inherently subjective. And that's to go with the majority (360/PC games are valuable), since you could say the discussion concerns the value of the console's library on the global market rather than personal opinion. It's okay to argue personal opinion, but you can't really argue personal opinion; its just, "I disagree. Good day sir. " followed by a tipping of the hat.

By the way, I found the story amusing. Gripping twist at the end. I must say I wasn't expecting that.