2. Yeah I know what you mean, I bought an XBOX 360 to play Gears, a game that suits the console. Same for Nintendo, I bought a Wii to play Mario Galaxy, a game that suits the console. And lastly, I bought a PS3 to play MGS4, a game that suits the console.

The type of people I hate most on the internet, are the people that complain about a game not being on their console. If I buy all three consoles for exclusives, why shouldn't they? If those exclusive games are suited for that platform then there is no excuse. The worst of the bunch are the vicious XBOX 360 JRPG fanboys who believe that every JRPG released should be on their console, despite being one of the worst selling consoles of all time in Japan.

3. I think there was no need to put ME2 on the PS3, it was a major flop in my opinion, if people wanted to play Mass Effect they would have bought an XBOX 360 or just played it on PC. Luckily it wasn't being developed simulataneously, but think of how the long term Mass Effect fans will feel if the PS3 version of ME3 flops, especially after the recent announcement of it being delayed until 2012.

4. So basically, there isn't any incentive for a third party to make exclusives for a system...

That's very true, Nintendo have built up an identity which is totally different to the competition, there really is no competition for Nintendo which explains why their consoles sell so well.

If Microsoft stuck to online play, shooters and WRPG and PS3 stuck to sports, action / adventure, platformer, JRPG and generally a large variety then the PS3 and the XBOX 360 would have no need to compete.

The XBOX 360 and PS3 are becoming so similar they are just copying eachother, I am beginning to question why I own both, and that is for a small selection of exclusive titles. Shooters really aren't my thing, so I tend to lean towards the PS3 exclusive library (I can't stop gawking at the 2011 / 2012 line-up, it feels like the good ol' days again xD).

@brendude  2. im with you some people let their bias for a company limit them to what games they could play, well there lost

3 i can see your point but im glad that EA released it on PS3, i dont have 360 i and dont want to spent hundreds on a console for just one damn game. I dont care about the other MS exclusives to be honest. And my PC is too garbage to run that version, i would have updated eventually. Hell i would argue it should never have been exclusive in the first place

4. Honestly, no i dont think so, unless that company wants to money hat the game

I will say this:  I don't care so much about there being exclusivity but I do miss the days of there being a clear cut winner.  I mean, in the PS1-PS2 days, EVERYBODY had a Sony console.  Some may have had an Xbox or a Gamecube and many people had N64's but you just knew that everyone had a PS1/PS2!!  That was a time when you could borrow any game from anybody, take it home and play it.  Now, half of my friends own a PS3 and half of them own a 360 and we're all too embarrassed to admit we own the Wii (which is dominating the market).

I guess if all of the big games were exclusive to one console, we'd all still be able to share games, experiences, and stories because we'd all own the same system (the one with the best games).  The way it is, every console on the market can lay claim to being the best in some form or another.

1 word: Fanboys... (in other words people are stupid and they adore a piece of plastic that says xbox 360 or ps3 more than the games)

All consoles have great games, for me i would rather buy 1 console that plays them all.. but that will never happen

I am talking from a consumer point of view, because it is obvious that brands like nintendo, sony and microsoft want their consoles to have more exclusives to make them more attractive to the consumer.

Exclusive titles are important to:

A)  Give value to a game console.  The more exclusives, the more value, the more reason to pick said console.  The DS and PS2 have comparitively massive value because they each have untold numbers of exclusive titles.

B)  Exclusive titles spur competition in the industry.  I doubt I'm alone in remembering teh 16-bit wars as one of the best (if not the best) eras in the history of gaming.  Part of the reason the 16-bit Genesis/SNES era was so memorable, and so strong was due to the intense competition between Nintendo and Sega, both in the 16-bit fronts, and in the handheld market.  Each console maker featured massive numbers of unique, often high quality, strong, and memorable exclusive titles adding strength to their systems.

Phantasy Star & the Shining series -- vs -- Final Fantasy, Breath of Fire, Chrono Trigger
Sonic -- vs -- Super Mario
Eternal Champions (and to an extent, Virtua Fighter) -- vs -- Killer Instinct
Sega Sports baseball title -- vs -- Ken Griffey Jr Baseball
Vectorman -- vs -- Donkey Kong Country
32X -- vs -- StarFox & Doom
Uncensored Mortal Kombat -- vs -- Censored Mortal Kombat
Mortal Kombat II with 3 buttons -- vs -- Mortal Kombat II with 6 buttons
Columns -- vs -- Tetris
Contra: Hard Corps -- vs -- Contra III: The Alien Wars
Streets of Rage -- vs -- Final Fight

Shinobi, ECCO, Golden Axe, Splatterhouse 2 & 3, etc.  -- vs -- Uniracers, Mario Kart, Super Metroid, Tetris Attack,  Super Punch-Out, etc.

Competition was fierce, and exclusive, unique, and quality games ruled the 16-bit wars.  It was mighty glorious.  

Exclusives are important.  

1.) For console manufacturers exclusives give them brand identity. They are the ones who [should] care for exclusivity THE MOST.

2.) For 3rd party devs, I'm not sure why; because if you ask me It's always better to go multiplat as far as potential sales is concerned. As a fellow programmer however, I can see it largely due to hardware architecture familiarity and its compatibility with the game design. In some cases maybe they get incentives from the console manufacturer (just maybe). It could also be due to simple favoritism.

3.) For consumers, it's really just about this thing called pride. Some people want their console to rise and watch competitors fall flat on their faces. Some are simply [too] loyal to a manufacturer.

Personally it doesn't matter to me if all games are multiplatform, if at all possible. It wouldn't hurt me if Mario appears on Playstation, or Halo on Nintendo. It kinda stings though that I can't play the game because I didn't/couldn't/wouldn't buy the said console.

The people who complain about a certain game not being on their system of choice are nothing by pessimists and crybabies.  Simple as that.  "Back in my day," we didn't whine and moan if Sonic wasn't on our SNES.  We bragged about having something as kickass as Super Mario World.  Sega fans didn't whine and complain about not having Final Fantasy, instead, they championed Phantasy Star.  They need to think positively and be proud of their choice and, and look at the positives of said choice.  

I love my Xbox360, and the only current-gen system I don't own is the PS3.  I purchased a great many Xbox360-exclusive titles, which add value to the system.  Crackdown and Alan Wake are tons of fun.  I'm happy with my choice, and I look at the positives of owning it.  Would I like to be able to play Heavy Rain or Uncharted?  Sure, but I lived pretty well without Genesis games as a kid, focusing entirely on the SNES I could afford, and I was fine with it.  These days, I've been playing hardcore catch-up on my Genesis, which I bought about 3 years ago.  

Not everyone needs every game available, and not everyone needs every system.  Each console appeals to different people differently, and the only reason to own all three major consoles is if you're truly a hardcore gamer.  In fact, that's the only reason to own more than one in general.  Hopefully, the next generation will differentiate the consoles more so that each system appeals more directly to each type of consumer.  Nintendo, despite saying they're going for more "hardcore" gamers, will no doubt fall prey to focusing entirely on the narrow-focused Nintendo core who only want stuff with Mario or Pikachu in it, and casual gamers.  

The Xbox360 appeals mostly to hardcore gamers and Western-focused gamers.

The PS3 appeals mostly to Japanese-focused games, and people who just gotta have the HD movies.

The Wii appeals mostly to family types, and those looking for something fun to play in a group setting at home that isn't as intensive as, say, Gears of War or Halo or Killzone.  

I don't think most consumers need to buy all consoles.  There's no reason to.  We're on a gamer-focused website.  Obviously, most of us are going to fall into the category of "hardcore gamers" and for us to get more than one console isn't such a strange thing or a big deal.  For the average consumer, maybe someone who owned only an Xbox or PS2 or PS1, and who typically only has one system, which is replaced halfway through the next generation--they don't need to own more than one system, and they need to think positively about their choice and look for what makes it a great purchase.  

I also get annoyed seeing someone complain that a certain game isn't on their system.  That's all Wii owners did--bitch, bitch, bitch.  "This game or that game isn't on my system."  And then if a certain cross-platform game did appear, they didn't buy it anyway.  "No, just because I bought the Wii for motion control doesn't mean I want it in my Call of Duty."  Ironically, the Wii ended up with a whole slew of unique and great exclusives--most of which were left rot on store shelves.  These owners were the epitomy of gamer pessimism.  "I want the Wii for exclusive and unique games, the kind of different viewpoints that Nintendo promised.  But actually, I want the exact same Dead Space and Resident Evil games I can get on my PC, Xbox360 or PS3."  

I have a lot of Wii games, the vast majority of which are from 3rd party companies.  I looked at the system very positively.  It made rail shooters relevant to the home market, and I loved that.  It features a lot of unique games, and I like that, too.  

People need to realize that if every game were on every system, then every system would be equally worthless.  Part of the reason the industry crashed in 1983 was because you pretty much could get every game on every system, and there were too many systems.  Piracy and rip-off titles were rampant and there was no industry control or licensing.  Consumers couldn't tell the quality from the crap, so everything went in the bargain basement bin together when nobody knew what was worth buying.  

Got a problem that a certain game isn't on your system?  Suck it up and look for what makes your system a great purchase.  Sad that you can't have Crackdown?  Grow a pair and buy Infamous.  Whiney because you can't get the "regular" Dead Space?  Shut the hell up and get Dead Space Extraction and enjoy it for what it is (and it's a cool game).  Pissed your pants from sadness that you can't play Heavy Rain on your Xbox360?  Stop being a pussy and get Alan Wake.  

^^^^^^"Got a problem that a certain game isn't on your system?  Suck it up and look for what makes your system a great purchase.  Sad that you can't have Crackdown?  Grow a pair and buy Infamous.  Whiney because you can't get the "regular" Dead Space?  Shut the hell up and get Dead Space Extraction and enjoy it for what it is (and it's a cool game).  Pissed your pants from sadness that you can't play Heavy Rain on your Xbox360?  Stop being a pussy and get Alan Wake."

hahahahaha!!! i love it i might not agree with everything you said but this is the best paragraph i have read in a while 

I have to agree... They're probably the only ones I would trust enough to buy on day 1.