I had the strangest arguments about videogames today.

I get it, games are weird, people have strange opinions, and the console wars are at their worst again with the release of the PS4 and Xbox One, but man, I've really heart it all when arguing the merits and values of them.

I got into a mini-argument with a friend of mine about the value of exclusives on consoles, and I'm still not 100% what his point was, or what his assertion was. The argument started out when I said I had a PS4 but wanted an Xbox One but couldn't justify it. He replied with: “Aside from 1-2 exclusives coming out in the next YEAR, they're almost the identical same console. Hardware wise they ARE the same”. I did argue the contrary, saying that the differences in spec types (GDDR5 vs DDR3 Ram, etc) and the features (Kinect, Vita stuff) made a difference, but the REAL reason to get one console over the other was the games. The exclusive games. I said, “If history is any indication, the PS4's exclusive list with be far better.”

And that's when the argument got weird. Straight up Odd.

“In a way I'm doubting they will have anything special beyond the usual halo/finalfantasy/etc train that each console panders to...It's really hard to name PS3/360 exclusives that aren't big name titles they've already been known for the past forever”

I had absolutely no idea what he was trying to say here. I think he was complaining about there being too many franchises, so I asked him to elaborate and explain a bit, since I didn't see how a franchise being exclusive to a console was somehow bad. He said:

“On both sides. Name some then that aren't big franchises!”

So okay, I think I got a bit more. He wanted to know some games that weren't part of franchises, citing sequel fatique. Okay, fair enough, but I'm still at this point unsure how a game being part of a franchise could somehow diminish its relevance. I gave the examples of Ni No Kuni, Demon's Souls, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, and a few other niche titles as examples of non-franchise laden games. Apparently he wanted to know about SUCCESSFUL ones, not the 'flops', like Ni No Kuni.

“I'm asking for popular games that are exclusives that are not sequels, yes. Because we already know the sequels on each”

And I was further confused. Wasn't that what I gave him? Demon's Souls, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain, and Ni No Kuni were all pretty damn grand successes, if I recall correctly! I still wasn't sure at this point WHY that is somehow bad. I kept asking him about why having franchises was bad, but he never really pointed it out. AS far as I can tell, he wanted to know if there were any mega selling games that sold like Halo or Gran Turismo, but were single-entry titles, not franchises. That cuts out all the options for Final Fantasy, Halo, Metal Gear Solid, God of War, and other exclusive franchises that started in the past, and that's cool, I suppose. Nothing new sucks.

But then I had to ask, was his problem a lack of creativity? Resting on one's laurels? Was it a problem with not making new franchises? I said that “most successful games get sequels”, because that's how game development works, and when I asked about franchises that STARTED this generation, like inFamous, Uncharted, and Resistance, he seemed to have a problem with that, too.

I really, really don't know why he hates exclusives, and despite arguing with him for a couple hours, I still don't know what the point he was trying to make was, so I eventually gave up altogether.

Best I can figure it, he thinks consoles should sell based on specs, and not games, because the very idea of having exclusive franchises on your console cheapens the value of the hardware. I know that sounds like a bit of a leap of logic, but I just don't see why he was so adamant about discrediting the value of franchises being exclusive to consoles. Every time he added another modifier to his expectations, (Can't be part of an existing franchise had to be successful, can't have spawned sequels, etc) I was able to give him examples, but for some reason it still wasn't an acceptable reason to buy a console.

The argument also used Mario as an example. When I explained that I basically accused him of saying you should buy a console for hardware, not software, I used mario as an example: “If you want to play a mario game, you gotta get a nintendo console. How is that silly? If the console has the games I want to play, that'll be the console I get.” (he kept using the term 'silly' when I described software exclusives as a reason to get a console).

His argument? “If you buy a console for one game, you're stupid.”

And at that point I was dumbfounded. Like, seriously, what the fuck? When did I say one game? I used Mario as an example of why one would buy a Nintendo console, and he took that to mean I'd buy a console for one game.

After some feverent back-and-forth, I just plain gave up on it. Best I could tell was that he hated the idea of console exclusives, and used a series of convoluted modifiers to his expectations to denounce every quality exclusive reason I could tell him to get a PS4, or why a PS3 and 360 were both awesome (Gears of War was another franchise I used when discussing franchises that started in Gen VII).

I went back and reread the entire conversation, and I still feel the argument was one of the dumbest I've ever had, boiling down to: “Yes but I'm making the point that the consoles are pretty much the same and that the only difference is trying to pander exclusive titles like a dick, who's is bigger. Hence why I'm saying it's silly that the consoles are pretty much the same inside and that the point where they're selling because of one exclusive is also silly.” That pretty much summed up his argument: if the hardware is identical between two consoles, it doesn't matter which one you get, because buying a console for games is silly.

Smart guy most of the time; I'm fairly certain he was high.   

He sounds like a sore loser. In the sense that you 'won' the argument, but he didn't want to recognize it.

I think in general, arguments about console exclusive are pretty much always "dumb" lol. I mean, it just depends which console maker has the first-party exclusives that appeal more to someone's individual sensibilities. It will vary with every single person.

Well, as far as I can tell, the issue wasn't WHAT exclusives to root for, or which console had the best exclusives, it seemed to be an argument about whether or not using exclusives in an argument about what console to get was acceptable.  

His argument was that it was silly to use software to decide which console was better, since both consoles ran about the same or similar specs.  

In short:  HArdware mattered more than software, so don't use software to sell a system. 

It's impossible to win an argument when concerning the console war. A fanboy will never back down from his opinions.

So you had an argument with a friend nobody on this site knows and then felt the need to share it with other people?

Why would you think anyone would be interested in that?

sounds to me like you got into an arguement with a total idiot. lol

or he is somehow trying to justify himself and his choice of console

Well, I think that hardware is meaningless without unique software to play on it. Otherwise, it's just a $300 paperweight, right? It serves no other useful purpose than to play software. Of course, some would argue that systems nowadays also have video streaming and social features, and that is true, but the fact remains that if all you want is Netflix and Hulu, then you could just get a Roku or Apple TV.  So, with that in mind, you then have to decide which console does (or will in the future) offer software that will be more suited to your tastes.  If it turns out that there are two systems with software that is relatively the same, then it may come down to controller preferance or possibly system horsepower.  I still think that's a cop out though, because even similar consoles (PS3/360) still have large libraries of first-party software that is very different from one another.   Of course, in general, I'd say system horsepower is the very last thing the vast majority of consumers look for in a console.  Just look at Wii's dominance, Playstation One's dominance, Nintendo's handheld dominance since the beginning of handhelds, etc.  The console/ handheld with the lowest specs usually is the dominant platform in it's generation.  What I believe that means, is that for most of the addressable market for consoles and handhelds, the software library as well as the price point is what determines success, and not system specs.

I had a similar argument with someone on neogaf once... they were trying to tell me that Wii sold well because of the Wii Remote.  I tried to tell them that it sold well because of the unique software that was made possible by the function of the Wii Remote, but they didn't seem to grasp what I was saying. 

He's a PC guy, my worry was that he was a 'technophile", where graphics matter more than gameplay (the PC Technophile is a well-established stereotype).  But no, he said he didn't care about graphics, and that he had an old, outdated rig.