By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Does the 360 have any real exclusives?

nightsurge on 29 January 2009

@Rpruett

But the overall quality and quantity of exclusive games still favors the 360...... And likely will for some time now.  You think the average person who goes out to buy a console has researched all the upcoming games, which is your very large mistake.  All they will likely do is realize more of their friends have 360's, look at the games available in the store, see how many more there are for the 360 than the PS3, see the price tags, and choose the 360.

Also, most households do not own a PC capable of even "moderate" gaming standards. Considering that like 95% of PC/Laptops sold use integrated graphics, you won't be doing much gaming past 5 year old games and flash websites.

Also, if they are looking for a console "solely for the titles available exclusively" to that system, again they would go with the 360 because it has more (including more higher rated ones), costs less, and the company isn't in financial trouble which many consumers these days will take notice of.



Around the Network
Rpruett on 29 January 2009
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:

For a system that has been out a full year longer,  you most certainly can play percentages.   There is 3 games in (Three years) that are 'exclusive to the 360' with over a 90+ Metacritic.    The PS3 currently has 2 in (Two years).   With the possibilities of KZ2, God of War III, GT5, Uncharted 2 all looming that number looks to climb and quite possibly surpass the current 360 amount of 3.

Another almost certainty,  is that the 360 (Remember with a full year extra under it's belt) has 14 titles 80+ via Meta Critic compared to the PS3 with 12 titles 80+ via Meta Critic.   Even assuming only one of the above mentioned titles can achieve a 90+ Meta Critic rating (Tying the 360 at 3).

The remaining three above should achieve easily an 80+ Meta Critic rating. Which again thrusts the favor to the PS3 and gives the PS3 the edge.  Considering how many games the 'Average' Video gamer will purchase, it is likely that these gamers will be most likely to be playing games from the 80+/90+ Meta Critic ratings. 

Given this. The PS3 has a better array (Albeit very slightly) of exclusive games that you cannot play on any other platform. 

 

The point of this thread may have been to shed light on the fact that the 360 has a large amount of sheer Xbox 360 exclusives,  but really all it does is show how big of a disappointment much of that large library is.

 

Bringing the average gamer into this is like yodeling at the swiss alps after a heavy snow-fall. NPD shows that they only have one platform and if they are console gamers it brings the whole PC/360 exclusive list into contention as well. You just raised yourself:

  • Gears of War 1.
  • Mass Effect.
  • Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon.
  • Left 4 Dead.

Have a nice day. 

P.S You really should make sure that you're talking about the library with yourself as the context, and make that very clear. Otherwise its very rude.

 

You're right they may have one platform.  That one platform is usually a PC unfortunately.   Which spits in the face of the whole 360 exclusivity idea that this thread was based on.  If most people have only one platform.   And that one platform is PC.   What does this majority of people go out and purchase?  A console where they could already play a good majority of it's games on their current setup.  

Or go to a different console that provides them games that they can't play anywhere else.

 

The PC only becomes a real gaming platform when you add a reasonable graphics card to it. Lots of devices have browsers for flash based games, its definately not a PC domain. The average new PC buyer owns a laptop and you cannot easy game on those and thats more than 50% of new PC purchases. Add some Mac and low end desktops and you could say that fewer than 10% of new PCs could play an Xbox 360 game to a reasonable standard.

So why are you so desperate to prove the Xbox 360 library suxorz? You feeling insecure huh?

 

 

 

 

 

Most new PC's are easily well enough equipped to handle a majority of newer titles.  Maybe not with 250+ FPS,  but certainly well enough to run most games with 30-60 FPS.  And why can't you easily game on Laptops?  Most Laptop users purchase mice to go along with their purchase.

Why don't Mac's count?  

 

Fewer than 10% of new PC's could play ...say  Mass Effect (To a reasonable standard).  Is that a scientific number or just some half-baked number in your head to justify your argument?  You can run Mass Effect  on what is now a 4-5 year old Graphics Card.  

Considering that a majority of PC users have upgraded their PC within the past two years.  I'm sure the number is far higher than '10%'.

 

 

 

FWIW....These are the minimum requirements for Mass Effect for PC.

Operating System:
Windows XP or Vista

Processor:
2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD

Memory:
1 Gigabyte Ram (XP)
2 Gigabyte Ram (Vista)

Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better)
ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)

Hard Drive Space:
12 Gigabytes

Sound Card:
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers



dgm6780 on 29 January 2009

being able to get a PS3 game on PSP or PS2 is no where near the same thing as being able to get an XBOX game on PC. PS3 to PS2/PSP is a step DOWN. The move from XBOX to PC is a step UP. (well if you like gaming with best possible graphics and best control scheme its a step up)

Point being that MLB should count for PS3, playing it on PSP is no where near the same experience.



nightsurge on 29 January 2009

@Rpruett
You are fighting a losing battle. Those are the "minimum requirements", which basically means you have to have those requirements to play the game on the absolute lowest resolution, with the lowest settings, and worst visuals.

I already explained to you why the average PC/Laptop sold cannot game, and it is because of the reliance on integrated (onboard) graphics which even if they have large amounts of memory to use, are still not up to speed except in rare circumstances.  You think most people have upgraded in the last 2 years?  Really?  I beg to differ.  There is a reason most people today are still using XP, and it's mostly because they HAVE NOT upgraded their system, nor do they see a reason to, or in some circumstances they cannot afford to upgrade.

You have a very skewed view of what the general public is and buys. The general public is the type that buys a pre-boxed system at Best Buy or Wal-Mart that comes with everything and a crappy video processor. That's how they sell them cheap and most people just want them for home usage anyway.

You also seem to think that most console buyers do all this research to see which is the best, which they don't. They don't look at the future releases, they see what they can buy now, and for cheap, which in every aspect the 360 (or the Wii) wins over the PS3. Even in future releases all you have is "what if's" and speculations, which no average Joe consumer is going to give a crap about.

Now quit derailing this thread, accept whatever beliefs you have as true and go hide in the corner repeating them to yourself. We know better and have no reason to listen to your desperate attempts to thwart the 360's games or lineup.

If you really do have all the systems, why are you even so inspired to argue? It just seems like a very desperate, and possibly made up story, because if I had ALL the systems (so basically if I bought a Wii), I'd see no purpose in arguing for one over the other because I could have it all and the freedom to choose. Right now I buy most games on the 360, and only a few games like RTS games on PC. I basically only buy Blu-Ray movies on the PS3 because their software line-up just hasn't impressed me enough, and I don't have enough friends who own PS3's to justify buying any of their games (online multiplayer is a big component for me).



Rpruett on 29 January 2009
nightsurge said:

@Rpruett

But the overall quality and quantity of exclusive games still favors the 360...... And likely will for some time now.  You think the average person who goes out to buy a console has researched all the upcoming games, which is your very large mistake.  All they will likely do is realize more of their friends have 360's, look at the games available in the store, see how many more there are for the 360 than the PS3, see the price tags, and choose the 360.

Also, most households do not own a PC capable of even "moderate" gaming standards. Considering that like 95% of PC/Laptops sold use integrated graphics, you won't be doing much gaming past 5 year old games and flash websites.

Also, if they are looking for a console "solely for the titles available exclusively" to that system, again they would go with the 360 because it has more (including more higher rated ones), costs less, and the company isn't in financial trouble which many consumers these days will take notice of.

Quality certainly not. Not when you see the sheer amount of bad games released for that system.  Quantity, no doubt the 360 has more titles and will probably for the forseeable future.

I don't think the average person researches much.  I'm saying a logical person would do this though. Realizing that most of the good games on the 360 are most likely available to them through other less expensive means.    Ofcourse, this simple fact isn't going to drive PS3/Wii sales or anything ridiculous like that.  Although it certainly doesn't hurt their case.

 

 

Again is your 95% purely a speculative number?  You're right many PC's sold do use integrated graphics.  However, where you fail to realize is that "integrated graphics" have improved quite a bit.   

Just for example :   I could purchase a 500$ Gateway PC right now on BestBuy.com  with 2.5 Dual Core 4 GB Ram GEForce 7100 (Integrated Graphics Card). Which if you read the specs for Mass Effect,  you will see that this PC will easily run Mass Effect.

 

 

I'm not arguing in favor of a specific console on a broad base here. (I don't care about the waging 360/PS3 war)  As it pertains to the thread topic on exclusivity, however.  The PS3/Wii is a more attractive system.

 



Around the Network
Rpruett on 29 January 2009
@Rpruett
You are fighting a losing battle. Those are the "minimum requirements", which basically means you have to have those requirements to play the game on the absolute lowest resolution, with the lowest settings, and worst visuals.

I already explained to you why the average PC/Laptop sold cannot game, and it is because of the reliance on integrated (onboard) graphics which even if they have large amounts of memory to use, are still not up to speed except in rare circumstances.

You have a very skewed view of what the general public is and buys. The general public is the type that buys a pre-boxed system at Best Buy or Wal-Mart that comes with everything and a crappy video processor. That's how they sell them cheap and most people just want them for home usage anyway.

You also seem to think that most console buyers do all this research to see which is the best, which they don't. They don't look at the future releases, they see what they can buy now, and for cheap, which in every aspect the 360 (or the Wii) wins over the PS3. Even in future releases all you have is "what if's" and speculations, which no average Joe consumer is going to give a crap about.

Now quite derailing this thread, accept whatever beliefs you have as true and go hide in the corner repeating them to yourself. We know better and have no reason to listen to your desperate attempts to thwart the 360's lineup.

If you really do have all the systems, why are you even so inspired to argue? It just seems like a very desperate, and possibly made up story, because if I had ALL the systems (so basically if I bought a Wii), I'd see no purpose in arguing for one over the other because I could have it all and the freedom to choose. Right now I buy most games on the 360, and only a few games like RTS games on PC. I basically only buy Blu-Ray movies on the PS3 because their software line-up just hasn't impressed me enough, and I don't have enough friends who own PS3's to justify buying any of their games (online multiplayer is a big component for me).

 

 

 

I'm not fighting a losing anything.  Minimum Requirements allow you to play the game at a level that the manufacturer of the game deemed worthy.  Anything below Minimum requirements and you might start to noticeably have performance issues that make the game less enjoyable.

 

I'm well aware of the PC/Laptop industry right now.  As I showed,  it took me about 10 seconds to drop a link to a 500 dollar PC that Users preferred from BestBuy.com.   That was more than capable of handling Mass Effect.

 

Again, like I said I could careless about the PS3/360 war that you wish to wage.   I'm purely discussing the framework as it pertains to this thread and that people still touting the 360 lineup as something of greatness, (Without PC/360 games) is quite delusional.  I don't care about what system sells more in 08', 09', etc.  I don't care about what system you like or what system you believe I like.

 

The 360's lineup minus the PC/360 games is meh.  Period.  You don't have to be a fanboy to come to that conclusion. 

 

And who cares what my reasoning is for arguing?  If you own all three systems,  what point do you have arguing with me? You're just so happy right?   You argue with me because you disagree with my opinion (Which is generally the purpose of a message board).  I argue because I disagree with some of the opinions laced in this topic.   Easy enough for you?

That's wonderful for you.  I enjoy all four platforms in their own ways. 

 

I just believe you are quite delusional if you really believe that the 360 still has "The best" or "A great" lineup without the PC/360 exclusives. If you go along with that train of thought,  why if you had a modest PC, would you even bother with a 360?  You would be better off going for PS3/Wii.

 

 



nightsurge on 29 January 2009
Rpruett said:
nightsurge said:

@Rpruett

But the overall quality and quantity of exclusive games still favors the 360...... And likely will for some time now.  You think the average person who goes out to buy a console has researched all the upcoming games, which is your very large mistake.  All they will likely do is realize more of their friends have 360's, look at the games available in the store, see how many more there are for the 360 than the PS3, see the price tags, and choose the 360.

Also, most households do not own a PC capable of even "moderate" gaming standards. Considering that like 95% of PC/Laptops sold use integrated graphics, you won't be doing much gaming past 5 year old games and flash websites.

Also, if they are looking for a console "solely for the titles available exclusively" to that system, again they would go with the 360 because it has more (including more higher rated ones), costs less, and the company isn't in financial trouble which many consumers these days will take notice of.

Quality certainly not. Not when you see the sheer amount of bad games released for that system.  Quantity, no doubt the 360 has more titles and will probably for the forseeable future.

Quality, yes.  As proven in this thread and by Metacritic, the 360 has both MORE quality games, AND just plain more games.  Also, the "bad games" is just an opinion as many gamers will still enjoy those "bad" games.

I don't think the average person researches much.  I'm saying a logical person would do this though. Realizing that most of the good games on the 360 are most likely available to them through other less expensive means.    Ofcourse, this simple fact isn't going to drive PS3/Wii sales or anything ridiculous like that.  Although it certainly doesn't hurt their case.

First, most people aren't logical, I'm afraid.  Second, "most" of the good games on the 360 are not available else where.  Multiplats are, obviously, but we are arguing exclusives and the 360 STILL has more of those AND more HIGHER RATED ones.  Also, how would a PC of a minimum of $500 expense be a cheaper means than a $200 console?

Again is your 95% purely a speculative number?  You're right many PC's sold do use integrated graphics.  However, where you fail to realize is that "integrated graphics" have improved quite a bit.   

Just for example :   I could purchase a 500$ Gateway PC right now on BestBuy.com  with 2.5 Dual Core 4 GB Ram GEForce 7100 (Integrated Graphics Card). Which if you read the specs for Mass Effect,  you will see that this PC will easily run Mass Effect.

That integrated chip is not capable of Mass Effect.  Integrated chips cannot be compared side by side with their discrete brethren.  Integrated chips have many holds that "discrete" cards do not, which is why PC "gaming" requires a discrete video card.  Also, as I said before, the "minimum settings" is for the bare minimum, looks like crap experience.  You need to go by "recommended settings" which I assure you the majority are no where close.  That gateway has everything needed to play Mass Effect EXCEPT a good video card.  If it has a GPU it would cost $200 more and then would easily run Mass Effect at good/acceptible settings.

 

I'm not arguing in favor of a specific console on a broad base here. (I don't care about the waging 360/PS3 war)  As it pertains to the thread topic on exclusivity, however.  The PS3/Wii is a more attractive system.

Time and time you state this, yet time and time you are wrong by your own definitions.  You say that the amount of "good" exclusives is a determining factor, and the winner of that is who?  The 360.  I don't see how by your own standards a PS3 is a better option when it has less games AND less "good" games than the 360.  It doesn't matter if the 360 has more "bad" games so long as it still has more variety and more "good" games to keep everyone interested.  Please, just give it up!

 

Oh, and I argue with you because I can't stand ignorance.  You are wrong in so many ways....

 



dgm6780 on 29 January 2009

nightsurge - you have no idea what you are talking about. Most people do NOT buy computers at walmart or best buy. They buy from Dell or HP. And even at bestbuy, the cheapest computer in the "basic desktop" section is $369 and can play just about any game on the market.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9175064&type=product&id=1218045567985

Onboard video has gotten much better. I got the AMD 760 chipset with onboard ATI HD3200. It is directX 10 capable and can play any game I currently own, including Bioshock. Intel also has directX10 capable onboard graphics, and its only $57 for an ATI HD4550 which can play anything on the market.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125250

And why not discount the XBOX arcade, or whatever the gimped version is called. No HDMI & no HDD = worse then onboard PC graphics card.



Omac on 29 January 2009

If you play Mass Effect with GEForce 7100 (Integrated Graphics Card), it's going look and play like garbage.



dgm6780 on 29 January 2009

@nightsurge
I just read some of your responses you posted while i typed out my last reply and it seems your opinion of onboard video is stuck in 1998. You are dead wrong if you think the posted PC cant run Mass Effect.