I also like having each console being a different excperience, I agree with you excpetially the last part -Ps3 and 360 are essentially the same console- that's what happens when you're only goal is to have the best graphic capabilities.

"And lucky Nintendo does not have a console as powerful as the xbox 360 and Ps3....because IF it did....lets not even talk about it." Yeah i can agree to that but to a certain extend. They would just prolly do 5%-10%, I guess I call it damage. Nothing big. But I can understand what you mean.

As for "HATING Developers." I don't know if we can all lean to that statement because, consumers always wins.

Developers are the ones who are struggling in my opinion because they are having a hard time deciding to develop games for a certain platform, that will not generate income as much as they predict/need/want.

Exclusivity is good. It shows that quality and hard work has been put into these games. Alan wake seems like one of them.

"Yeah i can agree to that but to a certain extend. They would just prolly do 5%-10%, I guess I call it damage. Nothing big. But I can understand what you mean." - Well then drop the percentage, and just say they will do damage.

"As for "HATING Developers." I don't know if we can all lean to that statement because, consumers always wins."

Well not many individuals can agree to that, "consumers always wins," simply because not everyone can afford a console.

I can TOTALLY understand the debate about exclusivity. However this generation,
MONEY > Loyalty.

Exclusivity is stupid, having more than one dominant console is also pretty bad too.

In the age of online gaming it doesn't help anyone at all if the networks are not interlinked and you cannot play with people on PSN or Xbox Live if you've got the other console. This means that one online network has to win so that everyone with a console can play with anyone else who has a console as well. How does having multiple online networks help us as consumers of content? Must I split my time between two consoles to play with friends who have Xbox 360s or PS3s? Must I buy a game twice to play with people on two different consoles as well? We're far better off having just a single online gaming system.

As for the content, people say that the PS1/PS2/SNES/NES had overall the best libraries. Well overall they also had dominant shares of the market. In terms of variety if theres a large pool of potential consumers then you've got the biggest room for innovation and potentially unprofitable but risky ventures. In addition to this, if the content doesn't compete with content on other consoles it reduces competition and doesn't increase it. Right now the arguments for exclusivity are evaporating because we're seeing multiplatform games with graphics and gameplay coming right up and competing head-on with exclusive content and indeed beating it in many cases. Competition breeds great content, but exclusivity isn't about competition its about running away from it.

In the next generation the performance available will be such that even if one console has half the performance of another it won't really matter as most people won't really care for the difference so long as they get the game to play. 720P vs 1080P? Most consumer tests I've heard of don't give much of a bonus for the latter over the former and yet that represents more than a doubling of 3D performance to reach that target. See there are people whom do care, but they care to the extent that they have a gaming PC and they aren't so much represented on the console stage.

If Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Other dominate the market to such an extent that the other consoles are non-factors then we will again have a massive quantity of content available to the one console, and those extra console purchases can instead go to buying great content for the one system. If say the Wii had dominated the console industry completely and you'd spent $1000 of the money you would have spent on the PS3 and Xbox 360 on games, thats 20 titles right there and a lot of very happy game publishers whom would be churning out great content at an even faster pace than what we have now.

I prefer multiplatform games to be honest. At least when we're talking about comparable spec/interfaces like with 360/PS3.

The more people who get to play a game, the better. Unless it's being made for Microsoft/Sony to publish themselves, I don't see much point in doing an exclusive on either.

I can't argue for or against as they both present pro's and con's. This article sides with the whole competition breeds innovation philsophy, which is great as I'm sure the online features would be nowhere near where they are now without it. Obviously it's also good for the aggressive price cutting that we're seeing as well.

On the other hand you'll only have to pay for one system, all your friends will be on it, there will be more games available to everyone and if every game is developed to take advantage of the one system then more games will match the quality of the few first-party exclusives that we're getting now.

For the console company(YES)for the developers and consumers(NO)

This guy (and some of you) must absolutely HATE the Cry Engine 3, and be wishing for it to fail miserably, because it's a multiplat developer's dream come true. It allows the developer to make games for 2 consoles for the price of 1. Anyone making a console exclusive game using Cry Engine 3 is simply limiting their profits; or being moneyhatted to all get out.

I want to criticise the poll questions a bit too. They lack subtlety and are too black and white. I can't answer because my opinion is a qualified yes. But by answering yes it suggests I support the views expressed in the article, which I don't.

People blather on about a multitude of multiplats. What crap! There are tons of exclusives for each console, and they showcase the best the respective consoles have to offer technologically. If this is a call for more console exclusivity then I don't agree. There is more than enough exclusivity out there to differentiate the consoles. My game library is 90% exclusive titles, don't tell me exclusivity is in jeopardy.

There is a form of exclusivity I don't particularly like: timed exclusives. Make it exclusive, or make it multiplat don't be half arsed about it. More often than not the game performs poorly on the 2nd/3rd console anyway. About the only exceptions are timed exclusives on 360 in Japan going to PS3.

Console exclusivity should derive almost exclusively from 1st and 2nd party studios. Technological limitations of what a 3rd party wants to do / is capable of (e.g. make a motion control game, only have staff cabable of writing software for a single system) is about the only good business reason for a 3rd party to make an exclusive game. Well that and market research to suggest that game X wouldn't achieve profitable sales on console Y.

The 3rd party developer sector needs mutliplats more than it needs exclusives. It's only the worst kind of console fanatic that doesn't buy a game because it's also available on the other console, thankfully those types are in the minority. From an efficiency perspective it's more efficient to make one multiplat game than to make 3 exclusive games (one for each console), unless the 2 exclusives are so much alike that they might as well be one multiplat.

I also think the article in the OP is simplistic and in some respects rather ignorant (especially of history and what truly drives creativity) but that would require a whole lot more to explain, which I can't be arsed with.

I say the balance is almost right. Though I think there will be fewer console exclusives coming out of 3rd parties than there have been recently, and that's a good thing IMO.

I'd rather buy 5 games than a 2nd console.

I like a good balance of exclusives and multiplat games on my console.