You another on this thread are the ones who are showing anger, I can sense much lothing from the two of you that you would go hand over fist to insult and generalise and yet you call victim card any time someone from the other side were to speak out against you, you yourselvs think you are top of the crop and betetr than everyone else and that's the point I was trying to make. You have no interest in PC at all and dislike it heavily, I never said outright that I despise consoles or want them to die but you'll claim I do despite the fact I own a 3DS and plan on a Wii U in Jan and because I don't see much itnerest in your clear console of rpef you sum that up as eternal personal hatred and try justifying it, when you can't you simply call the victim card like others have been doing around here and it;s honestly getting so very irksome at this point.

You need to let go of your eprsonal vendetta against me and others, it;s not good for your health.

Sour grapes much lol sour ehh.

This. I've never once said that people on consoles play "peasant" machines, I've never personally loathed others for playing on consoles, handhelds or tablets (I play on a freaking handheld and tablet nearly every day). I honestly don't mind whatever anyone plays on, 3 years ago I played on consoles as my main but now PC is my main platform just like how consoles can be for others, everyone has a main pref even if they own all the platforms and there is nothing wrong with that either.

Also there is one user on here who has "physical master race, dirty digital gamers" in which the user upholds to as they voice their hate for digital gaming/downloads and always argue against those that like to or find some way to ridicule them in some way or another, why is no one having a tizzy over that?, PCMR was made as a joke towards PC gamers by a comedic reviewer, the former was made to express hate towards another type of gamer/preference and wasn't born out of a joke which in turn produces a double standard pure and simple, especially for those that are now using PCMR as a means to berate and slag off PC gamers, all that ever does is prove that some people on here personally loathe PC gamers and want to kick them off the site, we have no need for those type of people on any site at all.

Also I'd like to point out that this thread has already been well and truly derailed and turned firmly into a consoles VS PC thread and it wasn't even started by a PC user, it's the same people who show a personal loathing for some of us and the platform in general and the same people who will just as likely call the victim card or use PCMR or some other veiled way to personally slag off the platform and it's users, that itself is a child-like folly, a complete and pointless farce that produces no results, secures no righteous victory over another but instead proves that this site still has a lot of moderation to do because clearly there are some here that want to personally shit on another to make themselves feel better.

They technically are exclusive, just not to platform specifically, Video Games/Movies aren't very equivalent. In fact back when we had HD DVD there where movies that were exclusive to format. The only reason its not like that today is because HD DVD is ded. Ergo, for that to happen with gaming there would have to be only one console.

It's probably because its late, nobody but (PS Gamers) were talking about exclusives hurting the industry when a multiplatform game became exclusive to a fanbase that doesn't even play it, even if it is temporary.

Also the Movie industry again, is not comparable to video games, they developed completely differently.

It's heavily implied everytime some one says something along the lines of "there is no point to consoles" or "I can't understand why you wouldn't get a gaming pc". Downplaying the concerns of those who choose not to adopt the platform is still deriding their prefererances. Also the whole Resolution/frame rate thing (but that's mainly console wars boiling over)

At this point the division between consoles and PCs are almost as superficial as the difference between consoles and handheld consoles, and the division between PC Gamers and Console Gamer is a fabricated as those between PS Gamers, Nintendo Gamers, and Xbox Gamers.

The whole debate about exclusive vs multiplat really comes from a lot of ignorance, some of it purposeful and some accidental.
Look.
Yes, it's sad that exclusives won't get to be played by all the different gamers. But really, if the game is so desired, then they should think about buying a system to play it and various other games exclusive to that system.
For example, I'd really like to try sunset overdrive, but I don't have an xboxone. I'm not going to buy an xbo just for that one game, but maybe eventuially I can find some other reasons to have an xbo.

When microsoft started their second gen system (the 360) they were learning from an experience that hurt them in the previous gen vs ps2. Lack of library. In order to correct this, they had a huge campaign where they basically went out to convince devs that a multi-console market was healthier for profits.

The devs looked at this and thought, hey yeah, if there's more than one dominant console, then there's potentially twice as many sales...and we can hedge our bets on which system is going to win by simply making games for both.

The actual result of this mindset was to create multiplats that didn't really take any advantages of system functionality (like developing for the cell), or multiplayer server values.
Think about it like this. You have a single player game with multiplayer components. You decide to make it for both 360 and ps3. You program along the baseline because it is simply easier, OR, you program with the prediction that MS is going to take care of server hosting. The result is that multiplayer is lacking for both, or that the 360 one is great while the ps3 one (which wasn't a very good environment for server hosting) is lacking.

What I'm saying is that when you program specifically for one console, you are able to take advantage of distinct differences. It's not unlike marketing to both a child and an adult. If you want a product that's good for both, it has to be something they both like and use and understand. Whereas you could also have a product that is "kid-exclusive" because it appeals directly to children. Do you understand what I mean?

The difference between 360 and ps3 was not so great as that analogy, but at least according to statistics, it was a difference of about 6 years. The average 360 player was 13-24, and the average ps3 owner was like 18-30...and the historical tastes of the games are different as well, with certain genres selling better on each system, and even both had different regional popularity.

While the machines weren't so different, the users were.

Because of this mindset, trying to share a game library between very distinct consoles and demographics, what it led to was compromises everywhere. Last gen became the "annual installment" generation, because in order to make money, you had to capitalize on successes. It became that much harder for medium sized studios to compete with bigger ones. It gave all the power to the ea's and activision's and closed a lot of other studios because in reality, it wasn't healthier to have more consoles...it was actually splitting the market in half, raising entry costs for owners, and halving potential target demographics.

You needed money to make money last gen. This gen we are starting to see a lot of that change again. Smaller and medium sized studios are releasing games again, a lot of them exclusive. This is because the market is much healthier for these types of companies.

A multi-console market is only healthy for those with the money to finance multiple developments.

I would suggest, that if you really want to play a game that is exclusive, then buy the console. Otherwise, be content with your purchase.
Exclusives are here to stay.

IE; a good example would be cell-phone cameras. Cell phone cams (especially front facing ones) are ever increasing in resolution. However, front facing cam res is primarily a feature associated with gen Y (the selfie generation). If you are picking out a phone and there is one with less functionality but a better front facing cam, and a phone with better functionality and a lower res front cam, chances are an older person will pick the latter and a younger person will pick the former. Now, some phones target specifically older people, and some specifically target younger people. Ones in the middle tend to do the best, however, the competition in the middle is crazy high with a lot of the phones being almost duplicates of one another with minor surface changes. And then you also have phones on each end of the spectrum that do really well, though the gen Y type phones tend to do the best. That's why iphones with high res front facing cameras are the current best selling but are getting displaced by feature-based galaxy phones. 

Basically ms convinced every phone carrier that these "mid-range phones were the best", and everyone tried and a lot of them failed because the two with the most money (samsung and apple) were too popular. 

With little engagement from the OP since the thread was made, and the complete devolution of the discussion into mud-slinging and petty personal insults, I'm gonna lock this thread and avoid an even bigger shit-storm.