Bear in mind, I was mostly responding to this... "the 360 hasn't come out with an exclusive in awhile." That doesn't mean you have to repsond with a list of games.

If you're going to mention Joe Danger, I could also inflate the 360 list with XBLA exclusives.

Anyhow, I'm going to end this discussion before mods warn us about going off topic.

Eternal Sonata, thats one that I missed, and still it's an old game. You can't make assumptions on Splinter Cell, I don't make then on Valkeria Chronicles. Dead Rising never wen't multiplatform because PS3 was new when it came out, and a 1 year delayed port generally doesn't make much sence. This whole timed exclusive thing only really applies to old games which released on the 360 in 2006 or 2007, when the PS3 was either unreleased, or simply new..

If Gears and Mass Effect released on the PS3 within a reasonable timeframe, then yes I would feel cheated, but they weren't and still stand as very good reasons to buy a 360.

The few games that are going multiplatform now, switch because developers realize that both the 360 and PS3 are sucessful consoles, and making a game exclusive almost makes no sence. Consoles no longer have huge gaps in sales, and developers realize this, That is why FFXIII and ME2 went multiplatform, to generate more revenue.

I disagree with all these arguements to PS3 having more graphical power then the 360. I know a lot of comp-sci nerds, and to my understanding, graphically the PS3 is slightly weaker, but because of it's multi-cell structure, the PS3 can generate and withstand multiple images on screen. Hence GT5 has 16 player racing, and Forza has 8 player racing. Graphically GT5 has better looking backgrounds and about equally as good looking cars, but you know why? Backgrounds are pre-rendered, where in Forza they are generated on the console. The same logic applies for FPS games, and MAG.

So I really see no reason why FFXIII Versus will not go multi-platform. Graphically it's not outside the constraints of the 360, and the amount of sales FFXIII made on the 360 was substantial. Thats too large of a market to ignore sales from. I mean the 360 has sold so many copies of FFXIII that even in Japan they are releasing it on the 360, and they said it would be exclusive to Sony in Japan. Yes making the game multi-disk is a hastle, but they will do it for the 1-2 million extra sales a 360 version will generate.

A lot of these 360 timed exclusives were early games that were released in 2006-2007 when the PS3 was very expensive and it's fate was unsure. Games like Lost Planet, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion were launched only when the PS3 was a couple months old, it would have been very difficult to make these game multi-platoform from day 1, and if PS3 did turn out to be a complete failure, then they would developers waste their time working with PS3' complex cell processors?

Very few modern 3rd party games go multiplatform. The only 2 I can think of are FFXIII and ME2, so thats 1 for PS3 and 360. This timed exclusive thing only applied to old 360 games, mainly because the PS3's fate was unsure, and developing for it was hard.

You can list examples of MS buying timed exclusives, or limited edition bundles, but Sony does the same. Madden NFL 2011, Dead Space, Black Ops, Medal of Honor, Dead Rising 2, etc. Almost every new game now has some limted edition special only available on one console because Sony or MS paid for it to be that way. This isn't a 1 sided thing, stop making it look like one.

As for the rest, your just getting insulting, and thats not called for.

Online Play, Acheivements/Trophies, Arcade Games, Home Button, the option to buy the console without a hard-drive, allowing to have save games on USB's, HD gaming. Microsoft did it all first, yes at first reliability was terrible, but HDMI models only showed a 2.5% failure rate (compare that to PS3's 1.2% and Nintendo's 0.2%), and I'm sure the Slim models are better.

You know before MS, Sony first made unreliable consoles? I never had a broken Nintendo or Sega, or have met anyone who has. Both my PS1 and PS2 broke around the time a successor console came in. Coincidence, or planed obselence?

Please leave insults out of this, neither the PS3 nor the 360 are perfect. You know before this generation, a post $300 console was just crazy. $400 on the 360, okay, but $600 on the PS3? Common..

I never said graphics I said processing there is more to processing then graphics, and as for which one is better, the ps3s processing power can be put into graphics but it's graphics card is weaker but if programed right it wouldn't even need a graphics card, so it depends how it's programed but it could easily outclass the 360 as we've seen with several exclusives and there is more to a game then just graphics, AI and physics come to mind so yes it's entirely possible it's out of the 360s league if they took advantage of the processing power, it wouldn't be able to play it, atleast without downgrading the actual gameplay (since it's an action rpg, gameplay is more taxing then in a turn based one) and why can't I make an assumption about splinter cell when you can about versus, besides, splinter cell fits the timed exclusive mold perfectly and previous ones in the series were also timed exclusive, it's like the most obvious timed exclusive ever

Where are the fuzzy bunnies?

Games like Devil may cry, tomb raider and resident evil I suspect were paid to go multiplat, there are probably more of course there is no actual proof of this either way, and I don't really care as much as them paying for games to not go to ps3, and yes they both pay for exclusive content and whatever but it seems like MS forced Sony into it, and even if we call them equally at fault with that Sony has never paid for a game to not be released on 360 and lied about it for a year as for the rest the only one I can give you credit for is the trophies/achievements, not having a harddrive was just MSes way to undercut the price, and then they turn around and sell a harddrive for a ton and make co-op impossible without it and the saving on usb was just to make the no harddrive bearable and  yes MS was first to do the rest but they would have been done anyways and the only reason MS did it first was to get a jump on the competition and the put out a console with a massive failrate (I've seen 2 separate unrelated things saying the launch failrate was 68%) and they were also first (and only) to charge for online without giving any extra service 

Yes Sony made the first less reliable console but even at their worst I didn't see anything even nearing 20% MS over doubled that with it's failrate, and yes neither are perfect but 360 is far more flawed 

Graphically I have only seen 1 game on the PS3 that looks better then any 360 game, thats Killzone 2 (not 3, due to this whole 3D engine, I think graphics have actually gone down). So i don't know what you mean by outclass, but I disagree.

I don't assume Versus is going multiplatform, and I never included it in a list of multiplatform games. I just said I think it will go multiplatform. Thats different from you saying Splinter Cell will go multi-platform and then include it in a list of timed exclusives.

and I feel the same way about Versus as you do about Conviction. I know the PS3 can multi-process things better then the 360, so if they designed Versus to have a billion things happen at once, then it would be difficult to port the game over to the 360 (just like ME2 is having trouble being ported over). However from what I've seen, it looks entirely do-able on the 360. Also in the history of current gen consoles, Square Enix has been giving more support to the 360. With multiple 360 only exclusives, or timed exclusives. I just can't see this game remaining exclusive.

I really doubt those games were paid to go multiplatform. Considering the substantially larger grip the 360 has on the North American market, and the appeal of RE, DMC, and TR to the western audience, it would have just made a lot more practical sence to makes these games multiplatform. Most of them were developed to play just as well on both consoles.

Of course MS forced Sony into this paying for exclusive content issue. First of all before this gen DLC was impossible, and during this gen Sony is having A LOT stronger competition then before. This is just the result of feirce competition, if MS didn't do it first, Sony would have.

No hard-drive = undercut price = better. 4 gigs is enough for a casual gamer who never gets DLC, and they can always buy a 16 gig thumb drive for $10, if they don't already have one. My 360 is an HDMI model, but I have my original 20gig hard drive (they replaced my 360 free!). Only 14 gigs of that is usable, and until this year, I never filled it up. I could still fit all my stuff on it, but it's much easier having my profile, and recent games saved onto a thumb drive, that way when I go over to someones house, I can bring my profile over.

As for the Arcade Slim 360 not being about to play Halo: Reach co-op, thats clearly an error in design, and MS is addressing it. Every other co-op game works, and this will be fixed. It's just a mistake MS made, go hate them for it.

Failrate on original 360's was roughly 30%, and the reason the failrate was so high was because MS let anyone build the console at first in order to release the console on the market in 2006. Nintendo for instance has an amazingly low fail rate because Nintendo will not allow any company with the slightest bad history produce Wii's.

As for Extra Services

Party chat-the ability to talk to friends who might be playing different games

Designated Servers-this is the main reason you pay for XBLG, only high end PS3 games will run on designated servers from the publisher/developer themselves. 360, ALL games run on designated servers, which means faster gameplay, much less lag. I've played PS3 games online before, the lag in many multiplatform games is ridiculous, I remember playing a race on GTA IV when my friend bought the game (I got mine later), and on the first turn everyone just started teleporting ontop of each other, and they all went straight into the wall..

Free movie streaming/30 pay TV Channels/Movies on Demand

Facebook/Twitter/Zune videos/MSN Messenger/ESPN/Windows Phone 7 integration

Halo Waypoint

Video Chat

Arcade Game/DLC weekly discounts (which can make up for the price if your that type of person)

and thats just what PS3 doesn't have.

Netflix, Chat (Yea Chat, PS3 online didn't even have that until SOCOM), Acheivements, Friends Lists, all copied. as you see, the stuff 360 has exclusivly is still more then what people copied.

I'll agree that charging $50 a year for XBLG is too much, most of the stuff I named are free on the PC, or should be free on the 360.

The only reason I am okay with XBLG costing so much is because I buy a lot of used games, and used games tend be be $5-20 cheaper on the 360 then the PS3 (talking multiplatform games).

Also some features of XBL come stright with the system, such as the ability to play co-op games using 2 different profiles, getting a head-set with the console, etc. These are pretty big to anyone who plays co-op games.

Next gen if PS4 and 720 are similar consoles again, and Gears of War/Mass Effect are multiplatform, and GT6 is released early into the consoles life with a proper steering wheel, I'm getting a PS4. I'm not happy with paying for Live gaming.

My message was posted twice for some reason...

Where have you heard anything about ME2 having trouble being ported over? and as for games, what 360 exclusive looks as good as Uncharted 2 or God of War 3 or even heavy rain, as for splinter cell conviction every other splinter cell was a timed exclusive, I called ME2 being a timed exclusives, if I'm wrong about it you can rub my face in it, but I haven't been wrong yet, with ones alot less likely then conviction, as for Versus like I said it depends how much of the ps3s potential they use, I can easily see it being unable to be put on the 360 in any practical way (much like MGS4 was) but if they were told to keep the option open and held the game back then it probably will, but I don't see the KH team doing that