No. Hell, I don't even know if I should count LBP3 as an exclusive.

I'm not saying PC games revenue isn't big. I'm saying that for the games that are on console too, the AAA, the revenue is bad because the sales aren't high. PC ports wouldn't be an issue if it was the main source of revenue. I partialy blame NVidia and AMD for not being clearer on their GPUs naming. It doesn't make any sense that a GTX 700 GPU can be worse than a GTX 600 depending on the rest of the number for the version. Of course, I understand why, but people without tech knowledge won't do it. In this aspect, the Steambox idea really try to fix it, creating a US$500 box that has good specs and it's easy to buy. Unfortunatelly, their bad timing probably killed it.

About Crysis, Crysis 2 and 3 still looks better than most console and PC games. The only games that look as good or better would be Witcher 2, Metro games, some PS4 and X1 exclusives and that's pretty much it. Crysis 1 isn't that much good looking today, I would say that Crysis 2 is a big visual upgrade from it and Crysis 3 is a more modest upgrade to Crysis 2. About optimization, I completely agree. Crysis 2 runs much better than Crysis 1 (that still doesn't run that bad) and Crysis 3 runs even better. That things are fresh on my mind since I've played 2 and 3 this week and the first game at some weeks ago.

About going multiplat, it's like you said, more is more. Even in the last gen the only times we got exclusive games were when the console company was doing them or when they where developed by second parties but all the money came from a console manufacturer. These are pretty much the only two situations where a dev should do an exclusive game. Of course, this way is better for the consumer since all 3rd party content will be enjoyable on the platform of choice for each one.

With 24% PC had the highest revenue share for Ubisoft last quarter... which F2P-games are they offering on that platform?

21% (238m of 1123m) PC revenue share for EA last quarter, 27% (300m of 1111m) PC revenue share for Activision Blizzard (WoW included).

The revenue from PC games seems to be a pretty important pillar for each of the three biggest third party developers, Valve doesn't complain either.

A product can't be "exclusive" on a platform if it's also on another one. Some of you mother fuckers need to learn better Engrish and shitz.

ex·clu·sive
adjective iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv

: not shared : available to only one person or group

: only allowing in people from a high social class

: available to only a few people because of high cost
Full Definition of EXCLUSIVE
1
a : excluding or having power to exclude
b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2
a : excluding others from participation
b : snobbishly aloof
3
a : accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class)
b : stylish, fashionable
c : restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4
a : single, sole
b : whole, undivided
— ex·clu·sive·ly adverb
— ex·clu·sive·ness noun

yes.

as long as its anluisve to ONE console and STAYS that way.

Skyrim sold amost 6M on Steam alone.  Niche.

Here is a list of "Niche" sales from Steam.  Keep in mind, this is only for Steam, not retail or other digital download services.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-addressing-your-questions-and-concerns/2/

Borderlands 2 = 3M+ (more than 360 retail version)

Saints Row 3 = 2.5M (same as 360 retail version)

Bioshock Infinite = 2.2M (more than 360 retail)

BF3 did good numbers too. Diablo 3, did it, and so on. Of course, we don't know how much people payed for it since sales can really distort things. But in the end, people must see a fact. A company puts as many effort in a game as they are expecting to get back as profit. Most PC ports are bad. I mean, terribly bad. I have games on my PC that have game breaking issues that I simply look at and wonder if it was even tested. If it was huge, publishers wouldn't deal with all the crap Sony and MS makes them deal with (expensive dev kits, lots of rules). If it was huge, games wouldn't get late ports. If it was huge, GTA V would be there day 1, not 1 year later. I'm not trying to bash it, I'm just stating that the level of effort put on it shows that publishers aren't caring. If it was a cash cow, they would care. It's the same thing when games don't come to Vita or Wii U: sales aren't there, so nobody will put money on it.

People sometimes think that publishers ignore some platforms simply because they don't like it. But unlike us, they have people owning company shares that every quarter will point any decision they make and ask why it was done this way and they will need to have a reasonable answer ready for it. Even the games you showed. Skyrim: 360 version had timed exclusive content, PC version is badly optimized. BL2: PC version is badly optimized (this one looks bad on all versions). Saint Row 3: I actually like the PC version, it runs nicely (I recommend more than 4GB RAM, but that's cheap and everyone should have more than it on a gaming PC). Bioshock Infinite: art style aside, the game isn't good looking on any version.

Most of your PC parts seem to be bad. I mean, terribly bad.

I can't even remember when a game or the whole OS crushed on my PC... these blue-screen times are over for many years.

It would have helped if you guys read the rest of my post..... maybe then you will at least see why I feel their is a clear difference between consoles and PC's.... but yh, I'm sure its more interesting to assume I have an agenda.

If you can play it on more than one single platform, then it is not exclusive.