but COD is freakin multiplatform and MS and Sony only get platform royalties, but in case of Halo, a multimillion selling franchise that is owned by MS, they get MUCH more money than with any CoD release.
So in terms of profit, Halo is more important than COD for MS. (ignoring the reason that it's a system seller for now)

I think your site needs updating then as it puts ODST at 6 million, Halo 3 at 11 million and Reach at 9 million...

If we consider that MW2 sold, as of March 2010, over 10 million units in the US alone, well that makes Halo sales look pretty piss-poor. My point isn't that "OMG HALO SUX!" or some other nonsense, it's that this generation has shown that exclusives do not have the best sales by a very large margin. 

And they work on money, just like every other company in the world. Therefore if they can get more money by releasing their game on more then one console, why would they not do that?

That's not the whole story though. Unlike other games, MS will have to encure all the overheads for the development of Halo games, unlike CoD. So whereas other games may just make them royalties, there is no expense for MS. 

Plus, you have just shown why MS should make Halo multiplatform; they may make more revenue that way, and that's in their best interest. However this is all some bizarre digression. My point initially was that the 360 hasn't been some AAA success that someone was claiming it was, nothing more, nothing less. 

And yet when ME3 and CoD's are released, we still see a spike in console sales, which indicates that exclusives are not needed to sell a console. 

@ Mazty

Dude do the math the site doesn't need updating

Halo Reach, Halo 3, Halo Wars, Halo: ODST, and Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary all came out this generation.

I NEVER say this and I apologize to any mods that read this, you know my history here and that I never make accusations like this but I have got to say it.

I highly suspect your in this thread simply to start up a flamewar and flamebait people. That is the only reasonable explenation of what you've been posting.

But it's not nearly as successful as CoD, a multiplatform series...My point is that exclusives seem outdated nowadays, more so when console power is pretty equivalent. 

@ Mazty

But MS makes more money off of Halo than they do COD. That isn't difficult to understand so COD selling more to MS means nothing, what your saying simply doesn't make sense.

But how important? You are presuming that every Halo game bought was an incentive behind buying the console, which certainly may not be the case. If we look at this generation, what seems more important then exclusives is advertising and loyalty. One reason I suspect that the 360 still outsells the PS3 in the US is due to it being an American company and advertising. Ultimately though it comes down once again to profits. Is it more profitable to have exclusives, or is it better to have a unique feature, like a HDD or bluray? For the publisher, it looks like exclusives are a waste of time, and for Sony, bluray looks like a gamble that will pay in the long run, more so then something like MGS4. 

And do you have figures for that claim or another vacuous presumption?

Halo 4 first week --> $229 million loss
Halo 4 second week --> Halo 4 dev and marketing cost and then some.

I don't really see anything to argue about tbh...