My one issue with the "exclusives" argument

[sales2099]

BMaker11 said:

Here's a rather simple scenario, using my own experience:

I own this laptop: http://www.frys.com/product/7167982?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

Pretty run of the mill, in terms of how much an average laptops cost. And considering it is average, we can extrapolate that many people's laptops are comparable, so there's a large base of people to base this analysis on. Yet, I can play Skyrim on this laptop, without overclocking, just to give you guys an idea of the benchmark.

Now, with such a computer, I can play Alan Wake, Minecraft, Witcher 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Skyrim with Dawnguard (since the PS3 didn't get it for several months after its initial release), etc et al.

Now, I, the average consumer, have an average laptop, and can play all these games, and more. Now, I walk into the store and consider getting a console. Xbox 360 or PS3. What would I be telling myself? Which platform would give me the largest amount of total gaming experience? If I get a 360.....well, I already have Alan Wake, Witcher 2, etc. That doesn't expand on anything. If I get a PS3, I get to experience Alan Wake, Witcher 2, etc. AND ALSO get Last of Us, Gran Turismo, etc.

Anyone talking about "experiences you can get on one but not the other" is disregarding the mind of the consumer. You are only talking about "strict one on one comparisons" to see "who can hold their own". But that doesn't matter, to the consumer. One system can have a plethora of games, yet if the consumers decide to get the other system and buy one or two games en masse, it doesn't matter how much system 1 can "hold its own in a strict 1v1 comparison", because, I, the consumer, am not thinking in a strict 1v1 comparison. I may not have system A, but I can still get the experience of system A without owning system A, because I am an average US citizen, with an average computer, and this average computer can run those games

If I (and by default, many millions of people, since it's a cheaper laptop) have this average PC, yet I can run all those "consoles exclusives" as well as many multiplats (that computer can run Sleeping Dogs, Assassin's Creed 3, Portal 2, SFxTekken, and more), why would I choose a 360, as a gamer and a consumer, over a PS3? I can play God of War, Last of Us, Uncharted series, R&C, etc. AND play Minecraft, Witcher, L4D, Alan Wake etc. With your 360, you only get to play Minecraft, L4D, Witcher, Alan Wake, etc.

If you're a gamer, which scenario, from the above, is the most logical?

Who says gamers are logical?Every faction behaves illogically.Doesn't explain the sales of Minecraft for 360 or Left4 Dead 1/2. Millions just consciously make the choice to not game on their PCs.....crazy I know. No preference is universal and lists should be unbiased and impartial. Putting PC into it is biased....and not impartial at all.

Is it fear that we filter these lists? So what if X1 may or may not have more offerings not on PS4 for 2013.....you will just claim that you can play some of the X1 games on PC right? So what do you care if someone chooses to make a strict 1 vs 1 comparison and limit the criteria to just their games?

And cmon.....weve been living in a XBox vs PS rivalry for over a decade. Can we not act like it ISN'T 1 vs 1? Because it has been then and it is exactly that now. So really, it comes to a earlier theory I have.......Xbox offers a better library then PS 1 vs 1. A PS3 gamer NEEDS a PC to be competitive with lonely old Xbox.....

By the way the above sentence is technically true...360 has more 70-90+ metacritic games.