There's a difference between buying games because you already bought the platform and store/portal that gives you access to more content and buying a console to play budget downloadable titles or in an even more far-fetched scenario, to buy a specific downloadable budget title that had no real marketing behind it like most DD titles. Big difference.

Now it's a very viable argument to say that a console owner may continue to buy budget titles off PSN or XBL after their interest has peaked with the console and $60 game purchases are far and inbetween, but again, this is quite the opposite of hardware selling.

And the day when all software becomes available via DD, which will happen long before software becomes exclusively available through DD, there will still be a multi-tiered structure for game prices. $60 titles will still cost... $60. And these same titles will still see the same multi-milliion dollar marketing campaigns used today to generate interest and sell the game. Budget titles will still be budget titles to include next to no or no marketing campaign in sync with their low development costs. 

Also, the day when software becomes exclusively available through DD will in all likelihood only be when retail outlets stop supporting the video game industry. While there's always an argument for PSN and XBLA cards sold at retail, those are essentially for those who either don't have credit (kids or those will horrendous credit rating) or are too paranoid to pay for anything online. I honestly don't know who would argue that enough consumers would still be buying redeemable cards at retail outlets to make it worth their while for their continued support of the industry. 

I found out that VGChartz lets you add the DLC seperately.  I just added them to boost my numbers (Overlord, Shadow Broker, Stolen Memories, etc).  Oh, and ME2 IS that good!  Can't wait for ME3.

Not even really sure why I posted that collection (and when I did, I suddenly realized that I had left off a few games).  I guess I just wanted to show that there's a variety of great stuff--exclusive stuff--for every platform.  Even if I didn't see fit to buy Halo Anniversary or inFamous 2.  There's good in them just like there's good in Darth Vader.  I put my money into those games (except the free ones!) and at the moment, I have everything I want.

If you stated XBLA and PSN titles are value adders, then they are only secondary treats or values as you say. They are of no concern in a primary conversation because when you buy an Xbox its usually with Halo, Fable, Forza, Gears, or COD on it. Casual titles are primary on the 360 because it has penetrated Nintendos casual market. The only console who treats casual games a secondary is Sony. 

There will always be a difference between a generational game an indy game and the time that changes, the company will most likely have found an investor and made a bigger, better game. Older titles on PSN are slotted under older titles like PS1, PS2 downloadable games, DLC, Add-ons, Disc based Add-ons and more. They are not pitted together in reality.

Not a fan of this thread, really. I'll just give this parting shot.

I think that most people look at a console and see if it has a few games that they will like to play. I doubt anybody buys a 360 for Ms. Splosion Man (though it is an EXCELLENT GAME) or a PS3 for Pixel Junk Shooter. That's just an awesome treat after you've already made the purchase. When you look at the console, you look at the totality of the library. Witcher 2 is on the PC? That doesn't mean you suddenly can't play it for your 360. DCU Online? Same goes for that game. Console mult-plats, too. Call of Duty on PS3 doesn't suddenly mean Call of Duty suddenly isn't on 360. You just look at what you can play vs. what you can't play.

It comes down to whether you'd rather play with Move or Kinect. Whether a dozen games in a lot of areas like LBP, Uncharted, and inFamous are more important to you than a few games in certain key genres like Gears, Forza, or Fable. It comes down to the "system sellers". Are a few blockbusters more important that a lot of variety? Are those blockbusters enough and can 3rd party titles pad out the library?

Man, my thoughts aren't really focused at all with this post. I'm sleepy. I'll try again, later.

Yeah it can. Any avatar in whatever game supports them is a 3D object withing 3D space and calculated via 24 points in space at any given moment per player. (48 for 2 player games) Move supports 2 points per player .

sorry, bra no controllers allowed. Just basic Kinect functionality.

youre grasping at straws the move can do all of the things mentioned and a headset couldve been employed on the pc and ps3 versions of mass effect 3. they just chose not to employ them. the kinect makes you the controller but microsoft failed to prove this gen that the kinect could be used to make core games.  when you have no controller theystill cant figure out a way to control 3d space. the move did it before it launched. for gaming purposes there is no comparison. all youre praising is a powerful camera when many cameras can do the same. microsoft just so happened to work out an exclusive partnership with bioware for something most wont use.

please some proof for that. I think its more the fact that kinect basically does free voice controls for them so they didn't have to put resources towards devolping a voice program. If its so easy to do with a mic more companies would do so. Kinect saves them the cost of doing the work, that why its not on pc and ps3. Also they have a game already that lets you control your character in a 3d space, Rise of Nightmares. So please dont make baseless claims.

sorry bra, the point is that there's no head set required, because the headset will of course be used for party chat so i got the party chat and the kinect voice command going on at the same time, you really telling me i gotta use 2 headsets to get the same experince? what about the multiplayer mode, me and buddy gotta use 4 headsets? crazy.

Forza 4 auto vista mode proves you wrong bra, you can jump kick crouch and run and sit in 3 dimensions, thats not the only game kinect sports 1 and 2,  adventures, the gunstringer, kinectimals, yourself fitness and starwars and more allow one to traverse 3d space

this is the only post that has made sense, since about the eighth page. YOu didnt trash MS, you just called it how you saw it, they are focusing on Kinect and thats what it is. ANd there isnt a damn thing wrong with that. It does great in the holidays, it expands there audience etc. If if bothers a person that much that they are not getting "core" exclusives, sell your 360 and get something else. I mean damn its not like its the WIi and its not getting any third party support, it is. ANd lets be real most of the games you are gonna buy are 3rd party games anyway, no matter what the system.

STAGE, i see where you are coming from I do. BUt like others have said you are in the minority of people who care about exclusives that much. Most people dont want or need 5-8 exclusives per year, they are good with about one or two. 

Sales2009 still doesnt know what the hell he is talking about. He turned a discussion about MS exclusives into an PS3 vs 360 thing, which tells me that he might be lying to himself about what games are exclusive. If its on PC its not exclusive, period. How about a list of actual 360 exclusives, you know games i can ONLY play a 360. Doesnt even have a PS3, so any thing he says about it, is irrelevant and is coming from a place of ignorance and really who doestn have a PC come on!

Wow this turned out different than I expected...

Personally I do prefer variety over the small number of sure thing "blockbusters" mentality but given 90% of each consoles library is 3rd party the exclusives are really only a small element of differentiation (TBH as a dual console owner I find the PS3/360 to essentially be kissing cousins in most regards) and one that's down to personal preference.