My problem is the deception surrounding exclusive games and timed exclusive games. I know that when a new game announced exclusively for a Sony or Nintendo platform, this actually means something. When it happen on the 360, it's more like Microsoft provided some benefit to keep it off other platforms for a year. I would say the net result of Microsoft approaching a developer to have a year of exclusivity is less people being able to play it while it's temporarily exclusive, in addition to misleading those who want to play that game into buying an xbox. When ms,sony or nintendo actually funds thats a new game that's actually exclusive more people are able to play it, as its something that otherwise would not have come to market. 

I know "it's just business". But again, I don't have to agree with it or defend it. Just like I don't agree with paying to play online using my own internet connection.

As an aside, think of the brand-building power that Halo: Combat Evolved had because microsoft secured it as an exclusive. Had it been a timed exclusive, appearing on ps2/gc a year later, would people identify it so strongly with the xbox brand as they do now? Would Halo still be a flagship title?

I hope that reasonable is right where he says people are wising up to Microsoft's trickery, but I'm not so sure. We'll see I guess.

To your 2nd paragraph, why would anyone feel cheated? Why would it matter? I don't feel cheated at all about Eternal Sonata, or Tales of Vesperia, or Star Ocean. So what if it's ported? And maybe more content? A PS3 owner is paying in time (waiting about a year), and money (the game is a year old, but still full price). I got the games earlier, that's good enough for me at least. I guess not everyone would react the same though, and may feel more like you would feel.

Okay, I can understand and appreciate that. Your problem isn't the end so much (that the games that are titled exclusive get ported) so much as the means (the deception behind saying a game is exclusive). I don't even really care either way, I own PS3, 360, Wii, a good computer; I can play any game I want anyways. I personally don't find it deceptive, but that's really just my opinion/perspective.

As for Xbox live, that's a whole different story, so I won't get into it right now. Simply put, I don't mind paying a stupidly cheap amount of money or the online. For a while, XBL was soooo vastly superior to PSN that it made sense. I don't think it makes as much sense now, but it's still very very cheap.

As for Halo, you could say the same about Mario, or Sonic back in the days. But even now, Sonic = Sega, even though Sonic appears on non-Sega platforms now.

I think most people don't really care. They may want a certain game, if it's exclusive, they get that system, if not, they don't care. It doesn't really matter much if it's timed or not.

Losing the exclusivity I could deal with, but I would at least want them to patch my copy to make them equal.

LA Noire is releasing day and date.....it may have been PS3 exclusive at first, at least thought to be....but at the same time, when we had those thoughts, the game was as good as vaporware. It'd be different if it were PS3 timed exclusive...which the PS3 has just about none of.

LA Noire is no different than Assassin's Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Tekken 6, FFXIII, and GTAIV. Developed supposedly for PS3 exclusively...yet end up on the 360 day and date. Again, Microsoft shelling out money to get a game that's going to be on the PS3 anyway. What're you getting at?

I still reckon timed exclusives are a HUUUUUUUGE waste of money.

If Microsoft continues to pay large amouts of money so that certain people (PS3/Wii owners) can't play games, then they're not gonna win many fans.  Why not spend the money on game development instead of timed exclusives?

I know Sony's been guilty of the same thing now and again, but it's not very often and they do spend a hell of a lot in game development too.

And Obviously, Nintendo don't really need timed exclusives due to the Mario/Zelda/Wii Fit/Pokemon goldmine they own!

Please show the proof that they "shelled out money." Sony had plenty of opportunity to lock most of, if not all of those games up, and they didn't. Why would they stay exclusive without some money from Sony, sheer blind loyalty? In fact, I'd say that letting Final Fantasy XIII go multiplat is one of the most boneheaded things Sony's done this gen (and yes, they could've kept it exclusive if they wanted to, let's not kid ourselves).

Anyway, I'm happy with Microsoft's business model from a business and consumer perspective. Just take a look at how poorly about 90% of these games sell on the second platform compared to the first. The only downside to timed exclusives imo is that they can no longer be used by your fans in list wars, but who cares anyway? By the time it hits the second platform, they've pretty much gotten almost all of the sales they're going to get from it being exclusive, and it's cheaper than making it a pure exclusive anyway. As a gamer, I bought Star Ocean last February, when there was virtually nothing else releasing for the 360. I don't have to worry about playing it now, as I'm plowing through Mass Effect 2 and have so many other games coming out this year to play. Most the time, the additions they make to the game when they release the PS3 version isn't worth waiting a year or longer to play it imo.

Considering what the install bases were when these games were announced/released I doubt MS had to shell out much money, if any at all for most of them.  Developers saw that costs of porting were low and potential gains were high.  In the case of Assassin's Creed and GTA they scored huge, which could have considered other devs to consider 306 multi as an option.

@topic:  I am in the camp that would rather see MS build a stronger first party because the whole timed exclusive thing has been played out so many times that nobody believes a developer who says a game is xbox exclusive, and the benefit to the platform is zero.  I think the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Assassin's Creed and GTA were multiplatted before the PS3 even released. DMC was multiplatted 2 months after the PS3 came out. And Tekken 6 and FFXIII were multiplatted when the PS3 had a very respectable userbase, and looking at the sales of a game like MGS4....warranted exclusivity (in case you were worried about "blind loyalty")

We know they do this behind the curtains. Don't act like they don't. Why else would developers say for years on end "PS3 exclusive", then mystically develop the game for the 360?

Dunno if this has already been stated, but in response to those saying that MS should just spend the money on new 1st party IP's, there is something that you're missing:

IT'S FAR MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO PAY FOR TIMED EXCLUSIVES THAN DEVELOP NEW 1ST PARTY IP'S!

Developing a high quality 1st party game would likely cost $30-50 million. Since this staff is also employed by MGS, they would have to pay for their salaries even between games. The price that is likely paid (we don't know for sure because it is highly unlikely it would ever be made public) for a timed exclusive cannot be anywhere near those same numbers. Especially beneficial is if the game/dev turns out a lame product (Haze anyone?), you're not committed to that dev's employees in the future.

It's simply more cost effective. And it has also proven to work for the 360 but not for the PS3 and that is why you don't see Sony doing it as much anymore.