By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My one issue with the "exclusives" argument

papamudd on 16 July 2013

So xbox fans only consider Sony products as competition, meanwhile sony fans consider pc and nintendo products happy additions to their gaming experiences?



Talal said:
I will permaban myself if the game releases in 2014.

in reference to KH3 release date

Around the Network
sales2099 on 16 July 2013
CGI-Quality said:
sales2099 said:
CGI-Quality said:

No point for argument (with that thinking), then, since said rules prohibit any kind of realistic discussion. 

Well that is uncalled for.

"It's the nature of it". 

Yes, its in your nature to bust my balls . I got that much lol.

Guess we understand eachother as much as we can on this subject.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Aldro on 16 July 2013
sales2099 said:
Aldro said:
sales2099 said:
 

If a thread says 360 vs PS3 vs PC....your more then welcome to include PC.

If a thread says 360 vs PS3....you stick to.....um.....360 and PS3.....because that is the criteria set out.....1 vs 1.

I am amazed how simple this can be yet so hard to grasp for some.

I think many of us don't give a shit about X VS Y

 

Say this scenario is true =>

Sales has a 360 only
Aldro has a PS3 & PC

 

TLOU is released on PS3:
I will be able to play it. You will not.

Minecraft is released on 360/PC:
I will be able to play it. You will too.


Aldro gets to play both games. Sales only gets to play one game.

Sales wants to compare PS3 to 360 alone but Aldro doesnt give a shit because he can play both games already therefore there is no competition in the first place. Aldro simply doesn't even need to do a VS because ultimately: He has 100% of the 360/PC titles available to him.

Most dont care about X vs Y........don't make me laugh. But theres the root problem: you are including your personal preferences into it when it actually has no place. Its a comparison of what one has and the other doesn't on a strict 1 vs 1 basis.

What you make of the list is entirely up to you and the platforms you game on. But thats not the point. The point is seeing what each can do on a individual basis, completely unbiased and devoid of personal tastes.

It's more of a logical reasoning.

If a game gets announced and at the end it has a XboxOne/PC tag. I go: Cool, might check it out on my PC.

If it only has a Xbox One tag, I go: Fuck.. might have to spend shit ton of money on a console now. Or I'll go defensive and write shit about a game because I won't experience it. There are those kinds of people in the world.

 

I want whatever purchase I do to justify itself to me. That is what Sony has been doing and why I consider myself a fan of them as well as their game developers.

 

What is even more funny is that you knock off games that would be from past generations too when still on a "1 VERSUS 1" basis, they ought to count. After all: The PS3 can play MGS1 and the 360 cant. Derp.

 

Honestly: I don't care. It's completely irrational to ignore so many other factors. I'll just go back to play Alan Wake without a 360.

 

I won't ever need one seeming as Microsoft has done absolutely nothing to give me any real reason to get one.
I even had two but I sold both :3 They dont fill a purpose in my living room and I won't ignore anything in it to justify the reason of its existance for me.



slow69 on 16 July 2013

Well i dont agree with the op cause the difference is that EVERYONE! has a pc, which means that if a game comes for pc and xbox it automatically invalidates the reason to buy the console. If im going to pay 200-400 in a gaming platform i expect it to do or have something that would be impossible in any other device. If a pc can play that game then why do i need a xbox?, i already have a pc! Thats why exclusives are important. A person thats going to buy a console should think like that, only fanboys want to compare the number of "exclusives", but quantity is not the same as quality and quality can be confused with preference. In the fanboys war everything counts, but the consumer mind is quite different, thats why ps3 is on top of xbox 360 now.



I am the new kid in town!!!

Scoobes on 16 July 2013

This is a terrible thread and one of the most pointless discussions I've seen on here.

Hardware doesn't exist in a 1 vs 1 bubble. PC, tablets, consoles, mobiles phones and dedicated handhelds are all competing for consumer cash so looking at just 2 out the many different combos is completely and utterly pointless. If you want a serious discussion about consoles you need to take into account all platforms that consumers would consider.

My version of the OP:

"Woah!" Jim says. "The Xbox 360 has the Witcher 2! I heard that was a great game!"
"Yes, Jim, it's a fantastic game. I've played it on PC and it was awesome", says Bob.
"Thanks Bob, I'm going to get it!" said Jim

Seriously, Bob is an evil git.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
sales2099 on 16 July 2013
dsgrue3 said:
sales2099 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Like Ethomaz tried to explain to you already, everyone (nearly) has a PC. 

Thus when forming a comparison of each respective console's list of games, one should exclude PC games because that isn't adding any value to the product unless you don't have a PC.

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.

I like the underlined part, but it applies to you not to me. You're the one blind to the fact that if I already have a PC and I'm analyzing which console to get, I certainly don't care about titles already available to me. This is why one must exclude them from consideration. 

In other words, PS3 - PC, 360 - PC.

You're arguing from a position of no PC. That's fine, but it's abnormal and you should simply admit it.

What you make of a 360 vs PS3 list is of no concern to me. If you have a gaming PC, then by all means you can play the games that benefit Xbox and not PS.

Using your own princliples and assuming they are universal is abnormal. The comparison is unbiased in nature. What you make of them depends entirely on your preferences. But if god forbid, Xbox has more games then PS on a given year, due to multiplats not on PS, it shouldn't affect you and you shouldn't defend PS because you'd just play on you PC, right?



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Aldro on 16 July 2013
CGI-Quality said:
sales2099 said:
CGI-Quality said:
sales2099 said:


Rivalries always vut out the entire picture and focus on the tunnel vision-like competition. Its the nature of it.

2010-present? I count everything since the gen begain. But regardless, I like keeping the games on each platform out in the open, regardless of exclusivity. Your point is to bring in other platforms for what they are. Which is fine, but again it would have no place if someone wanted to make a strict 1 vs 1 comparison.

"The nature" of something doesn't make it right - which you agree with or wouldn't argue against it in situations where things you like are on the "losing" end.

Right or wrong, it is what it is. If someone wants to make a 1 vs 1 comparison, they have every right to adopt said tunnel vision that comes with such a rivalry comparison. You stick to the criteria involved. Feel free to make a more "open" comparison thread and I therefore would not have any cause to stand in your way.

No point for argument (with that thinking), then, since said rules prohibit any kind of realistic discussion. 

+1 On this. A forum is a place for discussion where users give their own views on so much. Now suddenly everyone is to pretend they're living in someone elses' situation to create what is a completely illogical discussion.

Why should I ignore my PC to create some "rivalry 1v1" discussion? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Judging by most of the responses here: It feels like those who actually lack a PC that can play decent games are in the minority.

 

That is also probably also why there's a more vast Playstation centric userbase here on VGC than there is for Microsoft. It is 2013: PC's kinda feel like a norm.



attaboy on 16 July 2013
Aldro said:
sales2099 said:
Aldro said:
Necromunda said:
VGKing said:
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. 

NO!

1 VERSUS 1 MAN, IT AINT FAIR OTHERWISE. IGNORE YOUR OWN PC!

Lol...

If a thread says 360 vs PS3 vs PC....your more then welcome to include PC.

If a thread says 360 vs PS3....you stick to.....um.....360 and PS3.....because that is the criteria set out.....1 vs 1.

I am amazed how simple this can be yet so hard to grasp for some.

I think many of us don't give a shit about X VS Y

 

Say this scenario is true =>

Sales has a 360 only
Aldro has a PS3 & PC

 

TLOU is released on PS3:
I will be able to play it. You will not.

Minecraft is released on 360/PC:
I will be able to play it. You will too.


Aldro gets to play both games. Sales only gets to play one game.

Sales wants to compare PS3 to 360 alone but Aldro doesnt give a shit because he can play both games already therefore there is no competition in the first place. Aldro simply doesn't even need to do a VS because ultimately: He has 100% of the 360/PC titles available to him.


Hey, look at me.  I have a DS, 3DS, Vita, PSP, Wii, Wii U, Xbox 360 (that is backwards compat), and a PS3 (that is backwards compat).  I don't have a PC capable or running many games or at least I've never tried because PC gaming intimidates me.  I can play both games, too!  And yet, here I am, fully capable of making a comparison between PS3 and 360.  Crazy, huh?



colafitte on 16 July 2013

I think we are not discussing the original topic anymore. I thought that this was about a guy that had to choose between a ps3 and x360, and that he ultimately choose ps3 because a friend told him that certain games are available on pc too, so in the end he was pissed off because he's incapable to play a game that wanted to play (i assume that he didn't have a pc or a good pc to play modern games), all because a confusion with the meaning of "exclusive".



Angelus on 16 July 2013

This thread is highly entertaining