Platform Exclusives vs Console Exclusives.

The latter are bound to end up on both eventually. The Witcher 3 is coming to both PS4 and XB1. Dead Rising will most likely go multi as well once the XB1 game flops. Titanfall will come to PS4 eventually....etc...etc.

I prefer platform exclusives. The ones that stay exclusive such as 1st party titles.

This, honestly.

Also, just to note to those in this thread who are essentially stating us Playstation gamers can't use PC in our argument... Lets put it this way... I personally own a gaming PC, what incentive do I have to get an Xbox One when most of the games will be coming to the PC as well, and can play them on the rig I already own? To me it logically makes more sense to buy a PS4, since most of the PS4's exlusives are first party games that won't be coming to PC. With the notable exception of Sony's SOE games. Sure, not everyone have a PC capable of playing new PC games, but for those of us that do, we are justified in using this argument all day long as it's one of the key reasons I wont be purchasing an Xbox One in the foreseeable future. 

so in short..

..no matter what set of stupid rules you decide to use: ps3 >> 360.  whether you want to compare true exclusives or just consolve exclusives there simply is no comparing the two.  ps3 has a massive amount of additional support.

hmm,. maybe if we change the rules yet again to included timed exclusives...   you know, because 360 has bioshock and ps3 doesn't didn't!

It isn't universal that we use them, nor it is that we choose the PC version.

But that is beside the point. This isn't about your personal vdieo game platforms of choice. If you compare one console vs another, you keep it restricted to those 2 consoles, nothing more. This includes everything from exclusives to mutliplats: whatever each one cna do what the other can't. Your gaming preferences outside these 2 have no place in such a comparison.

No im an adult and i dont pay attention to such rivalries, its sad that other grown ass men? engage in them though/

whether we are in the internet, store, damn space. I am still an adult with common sense and i will use that common sense, now if you choose not to use common sense because you are anonymous on the internet and want to prove something that you kinda cant then by all means, do that. I will say good day to you sir.

I don't believe sticking to the current gen is arbitrary. Its just a way to keep things simple and current at the same time, while keeping it 1 vs 1 console.

But doing that is a whole other matter. Just the idea of lisiting games on one and not the other is problematic enough as we can see.

Stop saying that word. Its about games on one and not the other, not some arbitrary filtering.

"stupid"....sigh.  Its actually very progressive. It paints a clear picture on what one can do and one cant. PS has multiplats too that arent on Xbox. 

There is nothing wrong with doing a 1 vs 1 comparison, in anything.I can do a Honda vs Hyundai comparison and therefore disregard all other manufacturers. I can compare 2 sports teams, 2 cell phone manufacturers, etc.

These things can be done. Restricted comparisons have been done for longer then you have been alive. There is nothing wrong with limiting a comparison.

You live by your mantra, but if you enter a thread that is about Xbox vs PS, you better damn play by the threads rules

I would assume some would say that doing exclusive vs. exclusive would be a way to keep things simple as well.  If all you want to do is look at the unique features of the two consoles then I don't think you can disregard older games available on the platform.

Well you can totally list games that are on one and not the other, but what's the difference between you saying "well those games aren't from this generation" as opposed to "well thoes games are on PC"  when all you want to do is compare the platform "one on one" as you say?