Who wouldn't prefer everything on one console. You buy it for $400 bucks and you get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo making games for it. That is not going to happen though. So the discussion was pretty useless.

No. If there were no exclusive games then one system would dominate the market. A lack of competition, in the long run, is a very bad thing.

First party exclusives allow each console to have a share of the market. They are the reason the PS3 was able to rebound. They are the reason the Xbox was able to differentiate itself in the first place.

Let me put it this way: if there were no first party exclusives then there would be no reason for console manufacturers to use the games themselves to sell their hardware. That means there would have been less reason for Microsoft to invest in Halo, for Sony to invest in Uncharted or God of War. There would be less money coming from system makers to finance second-party games on PSN and LIVE. Without exclusives, some of these games would never have seen the light of day.

 So, yes, while it's less convenient to have console exclusives titles, in reality it's actually a good thing in the long run. It means more money in the industry, more competition, and more games.

these guys couldn't make up their minds if they wanted the flu, or a fever.

Playstation has the better exclusives, 360 has the better mutiplayer games, PS3 has more, 360 has quality, ect. i couldn't stand listening to the whole thing, as it was so inconsistent. 

wouldn't better equal quality whether it' single or multiplayer. KZ over Halo multiplayer but that's just me.

these guys may want to start using TelePrompTers, or find better day jobs. Morgan Web would have done a better job whether being inconsistent, or consistent.

@riderz13371 i know right! these guys are in serious need of common sense, as they make no sense.

They sound like a bunch of Xbox fanboys having a hard time admitting theres some good exclusives on the PS3.

Well, they DO have a point there. If a game has a good multiplayer it probably has a better replay value (depending on the genre and quality of the SP of course) -> I'll put more time into the game. I don't get though why more exclusives should be a bad thing? 

I thought what they ment by that is that developers don't put enough time into their games if they don't include multiplayer. Meaning if your game has multiplayer and single player you have put more development time into the game than someone who has only created a single player game.

Just...wow. Most ridiculous thing I read on the internet today. 

No it makes perfect sense and even in my case it is like this.  I have put more hours into Gears of War than what I have with all 25 games i own on PS3.  Same goes with Halo.  They are simply saying that MSFT exclusives tend to have better multiplayer games where Sony tends to have better single player games like Uncharted and God of War.  

They are saying they invest more time in games like Halo and Gears than what they do on any PS3 game because replayability.  You are in a very lonely opinion about KZ over halo so dont act likey yours is the only opinion.

Smosh is the most subscribed channel on youtube, so of course SmoshGames will be popular and probably makes them a lot of money.  i'd prefer to take peoples opinions that is not biased central like we see on gaming forums.  Am I saying I agree about I want exclusives on one console?  No.  Would that be great?  Yeah, but I didnt really hear them say anything that you said that was false. 

I thought they were saying that the developer invests less time into making a single player only game and therefore they can create more exclusives which is why the PS3 has more exclusives. Didn't make any sense to me.