Doesn't change the amount 360 sold......and that in the end, when doing a rivalry comparison, its something its rival can't play

Serious question:  Do you seriously think you can't play PC games on a couch with a controller?

Gaming computer does not solely mean a computer with adequate hardware. For example my brother simply does not allow his kids to game on the computer. Thus, they have a computer, but they do not have a gaming computer. So yes, I know plenty of people who either don't have gaming computers, or don't like gaming on the computer in general. You're trying to tell us the market is very small and niche and yet again, 7,000,000+ sold. The demand is there.

He said people older than 12.

Read more carefully.

u cant compare fable anniversary to gt6, last guardian, and ffxiv and im forgetting a few...my point is that while both system overall have an amazing lineup but the difference in the ninty/ms and sony is the continued support. its something sony is leagues ahead in. 

If someone is asking me about consoles and exclusives. The first thing i ask them is if they have a pc and if so what are the specs.

Once i know this then i can give them the relevant information. One of my biggest gripes with the 360 has always been that i have a gaming PC. My answer is always the same, if you have a pc capable of playing modern games, then a 360 is a waste of money in general.

Thats why the word console exclusive is used.
I do agree with you that a game being PC/360 doesn't make it less special. Its also a negative against the PS3 to 360. The fact however still remains, i can play it on my PC. Other people dont use PC's to play games so naturally they will get it for the 360.

After reading this thread I am really surprised people are so confused by this concept. I thought the OP and sales did a pretty good job explaining the situation. In a 1 vs 1 comparison, if one of the consoles doesnt have a specific game/feature, it is a +1 for the console that does. You cant disregard a console for being able to play a game because "that thing over there thats not in the comparison" has it as well.

Most people that buy PCs don't consider if it will play games as a factor in buying it unless that's what they want to do with it, because they probably don't care to play games on them. The ones that have a PC as a viable gaming option purchased it for that reason, but you can't use that as a blanket argument for everyone with a PC. People buy consoles because it is a simple and dedicated way to play games. And in most cases PC isn't an option for them.

Your argument (along with Sales2099 and the OP) falls on deaf ears because it is utterly fallacious to suggest that a majority of gamers don't have a capable PC.

I agree with the point of the OP. These library comparisons are about the value of the console's library. Thing is, value is going to be measured differently by different people. It's inherently subjective. For PC gamers, 360/PC multiplats aren't going to increase the value of the 360. But for non-PC gamers, any 360 games not available for the PS3 would.

I believe most gamers fall into the latter. Hardcore, internet gamers may say they use their PC to play 360/PC multiplats (which may very well be true), but the large number of people do not. Most gamers do their serious gaming on dedicated gaming platforms. So for the majority, a game on the 360 not available on the PS3 would be as valuable as a true exclusive, since the 360 would be the only way to enjoy the title in a way that they want. Therefore, for these people, such a title shouldn't be disregarded as if they hold no value.

If you're discussing with someone who explicitly asserts that they do or don't have a gaming PC, then you can adjust the discussion accordingly. But when discussing the console's value on internet forums, I believe 360/PC multiplats should be listed as valuable by default if trying to be as objective as possible. Why? Because there is only way to be as objective as possible over an issue so inherently subjective. And that's to go with the majority (360/PC games are valuable), since you could say the discussion concerns the value of the console's library on the global market rather than personal opinion. It's okay to argue personal opinion, but you can't really argue personal opinion; its just, "I disagree. Good day sir. " followed by a tipping of the hat.

By the way, I found the story amusing. Gripping twist at the end. I must say I wasn't expecting that.

My brothers kids are 17, 13, and 6. I might be wrong, but I think 2 of those are higher than 12. Help my math out a little bit here, please.

Furthermore that was just one example. And it's being applied to a game that is not very demanding. What about Witcher 2? It takes a pretty good PC just to run that game moderately well. And these scenarios you guys are grasping on, only apply to people who do have PC's capable of gaming and do enjoy doing so on them. There are tons and tons of people who, as I said, either don't have a PC, or prefer not to game on a PC.

You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend as if the number is insignificant, logic and common sense tells the rest of us it's not. Otherwise Sony and MS would not bother getting these games.