I endorse cutthroat competition. Without exclusive games, console makers have to work that much harder and be that much more creative to earn my dollar. This means price cuts, extra features, and innovative products.

I'm glad most games are multi-plat. That means that my PS3 isn't $600 anymore, my Wii has innovative controls and titles, and my 360 actually has good games that aren't called Halo. Plus, if there's a good game like Final Fantasy 13 or Street Fighter, I can talk to any gamer about it and not just Playstation gamers. Exclusivity would be like only being able to talk to certain people who go to a certain theater about "How to Train Your Dragon". Where's the fun in that?

Sardauk said: This is the multiplat generation so... no. Quality has nothing to do with exclusivity nowadays...

quite the contrary to me, quality has almost everything to do with exclusivity (atleast on ps3).

OT: yes I do, the best of a game is brought out when it's done on one platform. Also like others have said It helps sets the consoles apart, show what they can do and what they offer, if everything was the same, why have competition? why have different consoles?

Yes. Need competition.

@ d21lewis

The PS3 would have gone down in pricing anyhow. The console was launched with state of the art technologies (Blu-Ray, advanced low latency Ram, the Cell processor, etc) and many extras compared to the competition (default harddrive, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, card readers, HDMI, etc), actually normally this would have costed much more considering the involved R&D and component costs.

Sony is continuosly making the PS3 more efficient and cheaper to mass produce, that would have happened regardless, just like the PS1, PS2 and PSP. Just a bit faster as the PS3 included newer technology and was further away from game console pricing sweetspot upon launch.

Yes I endorse exclusivity

On the other hand I also endorse being able to play all games. And frankly I don't own a 360,wii or ds

Yes. If there was no exclusivity than the gaming world would be extremely boring. No one would give a damn about E3 if there wasn't gonna be any mind blowing exclusivity announcements now would they?

I think this being the multiplat generation is the main reason why a lot of people would say that the golden generation of gaming has passed. And it's quite sad really =(

I would love Nintendo to go 3rd party and support the PS3 as a Wii-HD though.

Technically that shouldn't be much of a problem.

MikeB said: @ d21lewis That means that my PS3 isn't $600 anymore The PS3 would have gone down in pricing anyhow. The console was launched with state of the art technologies (Blu-Ray, advanced low latency Ram, the Cell processor, etc) and many extras compared to the competition (default harddrive, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, card readers, HDMI, etc), actually normally this would have costed much more considering the involved R&D and component costs. Sony is continuosly making the PS3 more efficient and cheaper to mass produce, that would have happened regardless, just like the PS1, PS2 and PSP. Just a bit faster as the PS3 included newer technology and was further away from game console pricing sweetspot upon launch.

Soooo......you're saying that if the 360 didn't get a lot of the titles that were considered exclusive to the PS3, and wasn't considered a viable option to play the exact same games for hundreds of dollars less, the PS3 would still cost half of what it cost at launch and been redesigned as quickly as it was?  And you don't think that the insanely low cost of the N64 or the Gamecube had no bearing on the price cuts of the PS1 and PS2? 

In an alternate reality (which I happened to have seen personally, thanks to a freak lightening storm and the intervention of the Justice League--but I won't go into that), the PS3 launched at $600, had tons of exclusives like the PS1 and PS2, and killed the Xbox 360 like the PS2 killed the Dreamcast.  The end result was pay to play online (because if the 360 wasn't charging for it, the PSN wouldn't be free), no console based Netflix, no "Trophies", and a lot less game designers trying to push the PS3 to its limits to eclipse the 360.  Be glad that, for the first time in history, a Playstation console's success isn't based almost entirely on third party support.  Everybody (except fanboys) wins.

 

Also, in this alternate world, the PS3's price actually went up to $800.

CGI-Quality said: BMaker11 said: I endorse exclusivity because it allows the game to be tailored to the strengths of the console it's on without having to worry about anything else. Full optimization, if you will Also, without exclusivity, you can barely differentiate between consoles. You buy an Xbox for a reason. You buy a PS3 for a reason. You buy a Wii for a reason. Whether this is the "multiplatform gen" or not, what would be the point of choosing one over the other if they all had the same games? Touche.

Double Touche

@ d21lewis

The first parties are still exclusive, the 3rd parties you are talking about have always been multi-platform. The reason why many 3rd parties went PS1 or PS2 exclusive was mainly because of cheap CD media (PS1) and the PS2 dominating the market (other platforms being of less relevance), before that you can easily see they were already multi-platform companies.



Redesigned as quickly, I think certainly. However the entry pricing may have been a little higher.