It's amazing to me how this thread could have so many posts, and yet I only saw 1 person (on page 15) who actually addressed the original posters actual question. It's unbelievable! I literally went through 8 pages off people just jabbering on about how the post title is "technically" wrong. Or what defines an exclusive, instead of actually taking some time to think and respond the the posters question! Shame.

To address the original posters question....I have always looked at it as a strange occurrence too. Both consoles have about the same user base. So why does Microsoft continually have a higher sales rate for their exclusives... sometimes by 2 to 1. My thinking is that the xbox360 caters very heavily to the "Shooter Gamer". So when a game is released on the Xbox a greater majority of the user base will all be interested in the same type of game experience. While on the PlayStation you have a more diverse fan base. So you may have a few million that love RPG's but hate adventure. Or few million that love platforming, but hate racing. This is where I believe the disparity comes in with regards to exclusives.

Out of 30million players on the PlayStation you will have the fan base split pretty evenly over 4-8 genres. That's not to say there's not any cross over, because there is. But in general, the RPG guys will be playing and saving their money for the next big RPG, not buying the latest action adventure title. This is why I believe PlayStation exclusives sell less than Xbox360. And the exact opposite side of the coin is true of xbox exclusives. Most people are all buying and playing the same thing on xbox, and there is not as diverse a community playing many different genres. On Xbox I'd estimate most to all gamers play 2-3 genres as opposed to the 4-8 genres that are played on the PlayStation. Just look at the genre difference in the list on this topic....almost all of the games listed on MS side are all shooters, except for 1 RPG and 1 racing game.....and Kinect. Then on the PS side, there's action, adventure, racing, shooting, platforming, stealth....and that's in this small listing alone.

So in theory it looks like MS kills PS in exclusives. But in reality, it's probably about the same, just spread over a more diverse genre base on PS than on MS. Hope that provides some intelligent insight to the question you posed.

More/better promotion, more mass appeal, a lot of Halo.

You'll find a lot more variety among AAA PS3 exclusives... a lot more niche titles or titles that are mostly promoted through word of mouth or critic scores because Sony has little moneyz, too little to give big marketing budgets to many games..

-The PS3 has some critically acclaimed franchises but Sony has yet to create one (aside from Gran Turismo) that has the rabid fan base of a series like Halo. Not for a lack of trying, though. It's just that, for close to a decade, Halo was THE multi-player FPS game of choice and it just happened to be a Microsoft exclusive title.

-Gears of War was quite possibly the first block buster franchise of this generation. When it released, the world had never seen a game so beautiful. As a result, it got attention that it wouldn't have gotten had it released later in the gen. Still one of my absolute favorite franchises but timing has had a lot to do with its popularity.

Aside from those two, I think things balance out for the most part (with a slight advantage in Microsoft's favor). With North America being the biggest market for video games right now, and the Xbox 360 dominating, it's only natural for Xbox 360 games (which includes the exclusives) to sell more.

So Sony "having more exclusives" being the cause it pure bullshit. Microsoft's franchises sell well because they appeal to more audiences. They're more mainstream. Anybody can jump in and blow through Fable 3 with minimal frustration. They're safe. Sony is still trying for that breakout title but they just don't have the formula down, yet. Killzone, Twisted Metal, Resistance, Mag, Warhawk, etc--they just get lost in the shuffle when they compete against third party PS3 titles for the gamer's dollar. Microsoft has these evergreen titles that will always get attention because they seem to be amongst the best of their genres (FPS, TPS, WRPG, RACING).

Given a bit more time, Sony's exclusives will have that same pedigree. Platforming isn't what it used to be (unless it's on a Nintendo platform) so LBP, Ratchet and Clank, Sly, etc. will always underperfom. The only names in FPS right now are Halo, Battlefield, and Call of Duty and they all have loyal followings so MAG, Resistance, and Killzone get lost in the shuffle. Uncharted is a great franchise. Nothing bad to say about that one. Add it all together and the picture becomes clear.

This is the first generation where Sony has actually had to "take charge of the ship" instead of letting third parties take all of the spotlight. They have to create their own system sellers since much of what sold the PS2 is now available on the Xbox brand.

Too long/Didn't read? --They've created lots of new IP's to separate themselves from the competition. It takes time to build new franchises to compete against Microsoft's already established franchises.

The original xbox only had a few big games as the ps2 had all the exclusives. The few great to good games on the xbox included the very console innovative Halo: Combat evolved and a great sim racer in Forza. People flocked to the few great games the console had as compared to the PS2. This pattern continued with the people that went to the 360 and has lead towards the companies long term fans to continue to support exclusives on it.

I wouldn't call it bullshit. Sony having more AAA exclusives means their marketing budget is shared between more games, which either means their games get less money as a whole or some games get a lot less so another can get a lot more. Now consider how much both companies can afford to spend. 

I don't know how far I agree with the people who say their own franchises compete with eachother, maybe a few games might, but I think the factor above is far more substancial. 

The rest is spot on though imo :)

X360 has more exclusives than the PS3

Not more AAA exclusives, which recieve the most marketing and what's relevant to my post. Will edit.

Though I'm not sure about exclusives in general... how'd you find that out?

Wikipedia

lol @giant text to avoid confusion/trolling

The title of this thread, "Why do X360 exclusives sell more than PS3 exclusives?" is kind of inaccurate.

The real question is, why does Halo and Gears of War in particular sell so well? These are the franchises that sell more than the PS3 exclusives. Beyond that, it's pretty even.

It's a pretty simple answer, too, to be honest. Shooters absolutely dominate in North America, which happens to be the one market that the 360 dominates. This is one of the good things about having a centralized market, it allows certain the dominant genre to prosper. Generally speaking, the 360 has a disproportionate percentage of fans who like shooter games. It's the console's bread and butter.

On the other hand, the PS3 is more globally focused, which means that the market is much more diverse. No one genre dominates on the PS3, which means that no one title is likely to come close to Halo numbers. It simply does not have a player base with the same kind of tight focus. Uncharted is a popular game, but it's not a style or genre that every PS3 owner is going to like--I have no interest in 3rd person cover shooters, for instance. The same is true for any other genre.

That obviously doesn't mean, as one poster implied, that games on the 360 always sell better than games on the PS3--just look at fighting games or soccer games--but yeah, shooters will almost always sell better in North America, which means that they will almost always sell better on the 360. The Resistance or Kill Zone franchises would have sold many more units on the 360.

Microsoft also pulled kind of a bait and switch move that I think helped the popularity of their top franchises a lot, even if it wasn't intentional. By releasing several titles on PC and then making their sequels 360 ONLY, you're basically forcing fans of those series into either buying a 360 or missing out entirely. It's kind of like giving someone the first hit of a drug for free. Clever if intentional, fortuitous if not.