No it wasn't. Andre asked me how I found out which platform had more exclusives, and I showed him...

How many exclusives were released on each system? Sony at the very least seem to have far more 1st party releases than Microsoft do.

Really, it's only Halo which goes above and beyond what the PS3 has produced. The PS3 has an exclusive which has sold more than any Gears of War game.

And to be truthful. Halo isn't that much bigger than Gran Turismo. If you use the sales graphs, you'll notice that GT5 is only tracking below Halo Reach by a little over 1m.

Do I look like I have the time to count these giant lists? I measured them using the amount of iPad screenshots each of them had.

Andre's original point was to D21. It was that Sony has to spread their marketing over more games than Microsoft. 

You tried to correct him by saying the 360 has more exclusives than the PS3. But you didn't correct him because 1.) he wasn't talking about the PS3 having more exclusives, he was talking about Sony having more games than Microsoft to spend marketing on; and 2.) you listed a lot of digital games, which don't have a significant impact on marketing cost. Therefore, his point still holds.

I did actually ask him about ALL exclusives, that's what the "wikipedia" reply was to. But pig still hasn't replied to " There are plenty on other platforms, including PC. Alan Wake's American Nightmare, Risen, Toy soldiers, Class3/Class4 etc. " Not even a "I stand corrected" pig? I need recognition here.

More lists of who has the most exclusives don't really prove anything. This thread is about why 360 exclusives sell more than PS3 exclusives. One of the propositions is that Sony has to spend considerable amounts of money on more games than Microsoft, therefore limiting the budget for each individual game. So, the only games that are relevant are games that Sony/Microsoft have to spend a considerable amount of money.

Company A could release 20 low-budget exclusives over their digital network. But those games collectively wouldn't be as impactful as 5 big budget games released by Company B. Just going by mere numbers, Company A would appear to have to spend more money. But it's actually Company B who has to spend more money. Company A just released a lot of cheap small games.

I understand that. I see why he posted the source

But go back a few posts and you'll see that he was trying to prove you wrong; and he was using the Wikipeida source to do so. So it's still important to mention that his source didn't disprove your statement, as he seemed to suggest earlier.

I'm not trying to say him leaving that link was stupid or anything. I'm just saying your argument hasn't been destroyed yet.

That's also a big factor.

Sony does not spend much on advertisement, and because of that it sucks.