Yeah and multiplats too, i got 2 people to get FF XIII for 360.

It goes beyond similarity in capabilities. Its the nature of the development environment where the major costs are portable in mondern development given the vastly increased art budget and the general use of high level programming languages. In the Sega/Nintendo days the major costs were programming and the costs of the physical media themselves which simply doesn't apply today. The Snes and the Megadrive aren't good reasons for games to not be made for multiple platforms.

The good exclusives are games like Heavy Rain and Flower for the PS3 which will never be ported to the Xbox 360 because it simply doesn't make sense for them to be there. They  actually take advantage of unique features of the console. Its just an artifact of this generation with two consoles being so similar that exclusivity doesn't make sense. When Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft all make consoles unique to themselves then you'll see true exclusives come from third parties like Heavy Rain and Flower. The experience in how the game is played has to come from the uniqueness of a console I don't believe that performance is a good justification when the differences are *It depends on X* rather than having systems with capabilities so far removed from each other that porting would fundamentally destroy the experience.

The best games of this generation are exclusives. So yeh.

exclusives are the reason i buy all the consoles.
they define the console, i actually dislike how there is too many multiplats this gen, they should make a gap between the HD consoles because they look the same.

The majority of the AAA titles this gen have been multiplats so no

The games that pushed consoles to the max on this generation are exclusives. Games like MGS4/GoW3, Gears of War/Alan Wake, and basically any First Party game of Nintendo - Super Mario Galaxy 2, for example.

For example, and this is just an example because I'm not sure if this rumour is true, but FF didn't get as much content because of the 360 version. Besides, games take time to port, and some developers can't afford to delay the release date.

If a company spends 100% of the time developing a game for a X platform instead of just 80%, the exclusive game will obviously be better than the multiplat.

RDR , Bioshock are better than the games you mentioned save SMG2.....and there are also games like Fallout 3 , ES4:oblivion , COD4 , Batman:AA just to name a few.

You dont have to be exclusive to be good and you also dont have to push the system to be good.....id rather a developer be creative than just try to pump out polygons from the system.

No, if there are good technical reasons to make a game exclusive I think it's a good idea, that counts for any platform, be that PC, DS, 360, etc.

I also don't think it's bad to invest in a new project and make a game exclusive. What I think is bad is a game like for example Alan Wake which was already running (better) on the PC and make that exclusive to suit certain agendas.

I am also for timed exclusivity (if good money is paid for the devs for this), but not for 1 year timed exclusivity as we have seen in the past, rather a couple of months or release just after the holiday season.

I'm looking at things from a consumer's point of view on deciding what I think is a good or bad approach to exclusivity.

Bungie created Halo for the Macintosh originally. It was sad to see Bungie bought out by Microsoft.

I think Halo should have stayed primarily a PC/Mac game like originally intended. I think it's very bad practise to pressure Halo fans on the PC/Mac to downgrade to a XBox 360 to play sequels.

i like exclusives as they bring out the best if consoles, and are the reason why three is three. they drive competition and make games become better. and most of my favorite ps3 games are exclusives.