Look, smaller Japanese exclusives are one of the reasons I will almost always choose Playstation over Xbox but let's be serious about the relevance of many of them to people who pick the Xbox brand. If someone really wanted many (not all) of those games then they wouldn't have picked Xbox to begin with. They are, for the most part, a known variable.

Now, some of them ARE very relevant, like Nioh or Persona, but a lot of them won't mean much to someone who sticks to big western titles.

If all I care about is street racing over off-roading then I won't be jealous of a Jeep over a Corvette and vice versa.

In that sense, I don't think Playstations overwhelming lead in quantity is as important to existing Xbox customers.

I think that nothing will be bad for the existing Xbox Costumers, they already purchased the console and Microsoft will continue to release games on it, But less games = less install base = less exclusives.

Microsoft seems to be releasing everything on the PC so I think that they don't care about Exclusives, which is strange because they purchased the exclusivity of Dead Rising 4, I can't undrestand what Microsoft is trying to do.

Wait? Are you implying that the entire strength of consoles exlusive lineup rests on this mans poor, mortal shoulders? Like...if he doesn't personally enjoy, or have played every single one of those games, then they don't count?

Why, on earth would we meassure libraries like that? So, if a game hasn't been in my Playstation, and someone asks me about what exclusives there are for the PS4, I have to leave that game out?

Did MS run out of money? That theory just seems highly unlikely especially with new hardware coming and the Windows 10 gaming push.

Again, I think they have so much to release in a relatively short period that announcments are probably being held off. MS has a history of announcing some games not long until release as well. I mean Forza Horizon 3 just became offical.

That's exactly what I'm implying. Why should they count, if he doesn't like them?

Why would we measure libraries like that? Well, because how else would you measure them? Simply by the fact they exist? According to arbitrary numbers assigned by strangers?

People are welcome to list off exclusives to their hearts' content. But if someone is going to use that list as ammunition in a console war, I expect them to be able to defend it. And there's no way to defend a game unless one has played it.

They did the same last year, remember how they would not talk about a certain games at E3 like Scalebound/Quantum Break/Crackdown etc.

Once again, we already know how many games they have in development. They have a bunch of games releasing soonish, but don't seem to be working anything for the long term.

9-10 of the games they are working on have been announced, and are due in the next 12 months (depending on whether they count Minecraft or not, since they are counting KI)

At least 2 more of them are due by the end of 2017 (Phantom Dust and likely Forza 7).

And we just found out Rare might be working on 2 more games.

So, by the end of 2017 all but 2 of the games they have in development will very likely be spent. What about 2018? If they started developing more games this month we likely wouldn't even see them until E3 2018.

The next 18 months are going to be great for MS exclusives, but after that it looks like their output is going to tumble.

Because they don't stop exsisting just because he personally hasn't played them.

A list of games is just that, a list of games. It's a reference for the reader.

If someone was making a list of war movies made between 1970 and 2010, they wouldn't leave off movies that they hadn't seen. Because then it would be an incomplete list.

As for using Metacritic scores in the list, it's simply an easy way to show a critical concensus. It works in this context because we all see a Metacritic score from the same perspective. An 85 is higher than an 80 no matter who is looking at it.

Now, if we were having long, scholarly debates of each consoles library and going through each game and talking about their merits and issues. Then yes. You're going to want to have played all of the games in question, and have very defined beliefs about each of them.

But, for someone making  a very rhetorical list of a consoles exlcusives and their critical standing, none of that matters.

If MS could get Steam, it would not need exclusives.

I never said the games cease to be, or that they should be removed.

I'm making a very clear distinction about what is and what matters. 

Let's be real: no one making a list like the one that started this debate is doing so to provide edification for the reader. They're doing it as part of an anatomical measuring contest, to use an artful euphemism. But the list is useless on its own. It's simply a collection of numbers and letters. Unless those games are good or great, who cares?

The same goes for Metacritic, a poor measurement of quality. Yes, it shows the critical consensus. Again, a collection of numbers and letters that mean nothing if we disagree with them.