This is a legit point, since this thread isn't even trying to make one, merely bragging.I thought it was pretty self explanatory.Thread says "PS3 exclusives". An exclusive, as defined by PS3 fans since day 1, is only available on one platform, nothing else. Period.

Sly and MLB are PS3 games.......yes I noticed that, thank you. They are also on Vita. This by definition invalidates them, despite them also being on Sony hardware, it isnt a PS3 exclusive.Yet many PS3 gamers here and outside vgchartz still refer to these games, and last year still put games like Battle Royale, on PS3 lists, despite Vita having a version.

So my point is: Have PS3 fans changed the definition of an exclusive to a "PS3 game not on 360" and not "only on PS3"?

Heres the tricky part though, Sony has put you guys in a awkward position by bringing exclusives to the Vita, most recently the PS3/Vita game Guacamelee (88 on metacritic). If you go along with Sony and count these games as PS3 exclusives, you must then acknowledge games like Left 4 Dead 1/2, Alan Wake, Gears of War 1, etc. as 360 exclusives because it follows the same definition bending as counting a PS3/Vita game as a PS3 exclusive. But if you keep your old definition, then your forced to not acknowledge a growing number of exclusives that Sony puts on Vita. Your lists gets smaller and you can't talk up great games just because they no longer fit your definition of an exclusive.

This is a big issue to me, this ain't trolling. I would just like some clarity on where we all stand on what is now considered an exclusive. Is the term bended or not?

I was among 20K+ that liked that hoping come to pass.  They said the page was not hot air and genuine in monitoring interest.

Or start a Microsoft exclusives thread....