Halo is an established household name and MS much like Nintendo dont mind spin offs that sell based on name value. Fable is so bad that legends might end up being better. LOL I loved the SMG crossbow ::sarcasm::.

1st part exclusives are great because the company funds the studio to work. 3rd parties are also good if they are funded by the company but if the console company pays to gain exclusivity then that is bad for the industry. One case is that money is being spent to prevent millions of people from experiencing a game (3rd parties) which is a really bad thing. The other case is money being spent to create games that otherwise wouldn't exist. Therefore, it does matter.

Moneyhatting...

To me, it doesn't really matter.  Most 3rd party games are sales failures for the most part.  THere are few COD, BF, GTA's out there.  So, when a 3rd party studio wants to ensure that they can make another game in the future,if they sell off for exclusivety works out real well.  Because it is paid console exclusive, it usually gets more ad dollars from that buyer.  In reality, it creates more content just the same.  Because the company probably covered their dev costs with the buyout, they can creat another game.  Had the game not been Moneyhatted, they might have went bankrupt.

not really,..

1st party exclusive never go multiplat.

3rd party exclusive can.

the point of labeling something exclusive is to motivate someone to buy a specific console over another or maybe to go multi-console.  i know that if i ever want to play mario kart or smash brothers i have to buy a nintendo console.

do i have to buy an xbox to play dead rising 3?  apparently not any more. 

there is a good list of 3rd party "exclusives" that aren't actually exclusive including bioshock, ninja gaiden (sigma), eternal sonata, the 2 DLC packs for GTA IV, mass effect, alan wake,..

It's also interesting when it's coming from a guy who has Crash Bandicoot as his avatar. Does anybody know why crash and spyro were never on N64? It's not like their wasn't a market for them there.

Isn't the phrase, 1st Party Exclusive, a little redundant?

First-party exclusives and third-party exclusives are both welcome unless the latter releases on the PC as well. Then it doesn't remain an exclusive.

As I take it, you ask two questions here, or at least bring up two thing to discuss.

Does it matter if the game is made from 1st, 2nd or 3rd party if it's an exclusive game? No, of course not.

Why are some people angry about some 3rd party games being "bought up" and dropped from all but one console/platform? Because it's a loss for the common gamer, they can not play this game if they don't buy every single console out there. Not everyone can afford this and most only use one system per generation. So if game X looks like a really nice game that I want to play on my console Y, but console Z makes it exclusive it sucks for me. Simple as that. If I want to play it.

And I think that people do get upset/rant about 3rd party games because they have potential to come to their console, and then company Z decides to slap them in the face to make some extra cash.

No. They're still exclusive.

Of course it matters.First party exclusives will remain exclusive, third party exclusives are often later ported to other consoles.
Example : Viewtiful Joe GC