I have no issues with exclusivity, as long as it is driven by sound business decisions and strong relationships between companies. Where I have a problem with exclusivity is when console makers buy it from third parties, essentially bribing them out of honest competition. I find the ethical grounds here to be questionable at best.

Genesis players did lose because Mario wasn't on their console. Yes. I agree with that. Xbox 360 gamers ARE losing out because they can't play games like Uncharted 2 or Heavy Rain.

But 1st party is not equal to 3rd party.

Earlier in this thread, I stated that it was the responsibility of the 1st party to make their respective consoles a success. I stand by my words. And, the industry has survived. No doubt about that. But imagine how far it could go.

-As for the Wal-Mart/Target analogy, it doesn't cost me $300 to go to Target instead of Wal-Mart..... :P

We pretty much had a one console market, last gen (PS2).  That turned out okay........

Anyhoo, once again, it is time for me to try to get a few minutes of sleep befor I go to work.  Wanna agree to disagree?

and you say other people are living in an alternate reality??

Muwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I voted "don't care" because I'm happy as long as I have something to play the next Zelda on.

I endorse exclusives when they make sense.

MGS4 doesn't make sense. Gears of War doesn't make sense. Ratchet & Clank doesn't make sense. Splinter Cell doesn't make sense.

It makes sense for your game to reach as large an audience as possible, it makes sense to get as much profit as you possibly can, it makes sense to create the game you want to create.

My personal dream scenario would be that you had one console, like a DVD player. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung, Toshiba and more could all create their own versions of the hardware, but any game could be played on any of these hardware iterations. The differentiator would be what every other offering that console gave you. If I wanted the best online service, maybe Microsoft would be the best choice. If I wanted additional TV offerings through my console, maybe Samsung would be my best bet. If I wanted the best stereoscopic 3D, maybe Sony's version would be the one to get.

My pants are wet from the thought alone!

In general though, what we can say is that hardware performace is not what drives sales or creativity. It's interfaces and features. The exclusives that make sense this generation are not God of War III, Fable 2, MadWorld, Super Smash Brothers Brawl or Halo 3. They're Heavy Rain, Flower, Demon's Souls, LittleBigPlanet, Red Steel 2 (I know this list looks biased, but my knowledge of unique games on the Wii and 360 is limited, so bear with me) and games like them that make good use of the console's respective abilities.

If the hardware manufacturers had to fight over my money on features alone, I think we would see a hell of a lot of growth in the industry, and I think all developers would be able to produce better games and take more risks. Imagine if the current gen consoles had all been "one" console. They're would be room for much more innovation and risktaking on a 145 mio. userbase as active as this one, than on any of the platforms we have today.

As a consumer, I don't care if a game is exclusive. In fact, it just means I have to buy more consoles.

As someone who understands how the gaming industry works, I understand some games can sell better by going exclusive and pandering to certain markets. Or development costs can be lower (or be subsidized) by going exclusive. Still, I would only support it if its necessary for specific games.

If you're lamenting the loss of innovation this generation, then I feel you're lamenting the wrong reasons. This generation has been a transitional one for the gaming industry into new revenue models, new multiplayer experiences and new control schemes. The best reason why the industry has been stale on many genres is that both the consumers of game media and publishers have retrenched into a more conservative mindset. This generation in many ways is simply an extension of the previous generation with the experiences being more inline with previous generation offerings. To get truly innovative experiences you need both the hardware and the consumer to be alligned to look to both create and consume these innovative new game experiences. This is the reason why the most innovative software can be found on the Wii. It has nothing to do with a game being nominally exclusive unless supported by explicit reasons for that exclusivity, I.E. the experience can not be recreated on other hardware.

First and second party software are a different animal entirely. They don't have to be successful by themselves because they have an alterior motivation in their creation in terms of selling additional hardware and by nature they are there to pave the way for the rest, I.E. consumers/3rd party publishers to follow. If the loss of 3rd party exclusivity and homogonisation is a problem for you then you have to lay the blame on the feet of both Microsoft and Sony for their own lack of hardware innovation and vision. Thats the major reason behind why everything is multiplatform is because they themselves both created a Playstation 3. The foundation of this generation was laid for them to be conservative and risk averse because the platforms themselves support nothing more than this. Never before has there been so little difference between two consoles as they both have DX9 specification graphics cards, they both have the same quantity of RAM and they both have CPUs which share a very close lineage.

The only way you're going to see a truly innovative and exciting console generation is if all parties diverge in terms of their hardware and ecosystems and something new comes into the mix. The reason why I believe so strongly in 3D is not that im interested in the 3D effect itself, im more interested in what comes of the experimental development where both developers are pursuing innovation towards this field and consumers are interested in trying out a completely new experience. This generation is a transition really into the next generation. The next generation is the culmination of this one and the period of consolidation will end. Its up to the console makers themselves to lay this foundation and create truly differentiated hardware and finally we have this opportunity. AMD has a fantastic CPU/GPU called Llano, Intel has Larrabee 3 in the pipeline for 2011/12 and IBM has multiple architectures of interest to us like POWER 7 and further development of the Cell. Beyond this we know that all three are pursuing innovation in different fields, Microsoft has their camera interface, Nintendo isn't going to release the Wiimote 2 and Sony has their Move. Each are relevant in different ways to 3D and in creating new experiences.

I still haven't got my answer to my question.

Until someone answers this question, you can continue talking about financials and what not, but it's moot. You don't endorse exclusives? Well then if you bought a 360, you just bought a PS3 then. But there are multiple consoles made for a reason.....

I'll give you a short recap on what on my post from a few posts ago.

If a console was like a DVD player, every current gen game could be played on any current gen console, whether it was made by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, whatever.

This would force hardware manufacturers to win over the consumer with the quality of their machine and the features it gives, rather than the game selection, and developers would gain access to a much more vast userbase, allowing for more risks to be taken and more innovation to be tested.

The only ones who don't "win" are the hardware manufacturers who can no longer focus on a one or two competitors, but potentially many more, and possibly lower profits from third party sales (as I doubt the current fee third parties pay to publish a game on a system would be usable in my suggested scenario). But they would still gain sales from the increased userbase, so that would make up some of the lost revenue.

All in all, when developers gain more freedom to experiment and competition is upped for the hardware without limiting what games you can buy, the gamer wins big time. And if one box could run all games, I think we would see some noticable growth in the industry.