CavZee wrote:
Better or worse is subjective of course. How many games even came out on both the SNES and Genesis? Not much,
Hm? Maybe not the games that defined those consoles, but there certainly were a lot of games that you could play on both.
and even alot of the ones that did were quite radically different.
Most games with the same title were more or less the same game. Games like Aladdin were exceptions not the norm between the Genesis and SNES. Of course you rarely see that in today's market.
I was trying to point out that nowadays when a game is announced or released it's almost always a multiplatform title.
If I had to assume, I would say that most games that have been made since the first game have probably been multi plat. But yes, exclusives are less important.
At it's core, I really feel that the only reason people are mad that there are less exclusives is because it makes it harder to argue about what console is better. Objectively speaking, it is irrational to be upset that you can now play games on more platforms. It is better for both the fans and the industry that companies do not have a strangle on the major third parties like in the past.
Exclusives are becoming rarer and rarer and that really diminishes the value of any particular game console to me. I sold off my 360 about a year ago when I realized there was practically no upcoming exclusives that interested me and about 10 of the 14 games or so I did own I could obtain on either PC or PS3.
In less something has changed, people have been selling their consoles in every generation due to realizing they could live with out their library. I've seen plenty of n64s being sold because Nintendo failed to get third party support. When people realized that having Super Mario 64 wasn't the end all to be all, it didn't seem to really matter that you couldn't play it on your Playstation.
At least with Nintendo you know there will be plenty of exclusive stuff that you will never get anywhere else, no ports to PC a year later or PS3 director's cuts.
That comes off as arbitrary to me. Do you really think that I would enjoy the PS3 version of NBA 2k13 more if I knew that people on Xbox couldn't experience the same gamegame?
The exclusive argument really makes no sense Nintendo especially if we were to reference the Wii.
For one, when most people talk about exclusives for the Wii they're usually games that were made by Nintendo (yes, there are plenty of third party exclusives, but let's not dive into semantics. The games that define the Wii to the average joe core game are Nintendo made). In those regards, how are they any different from the PS3 and to an extent the 360? In less I'm missing something the most famous exclusives for the PS3 are made by Sony, and you're sure as heck not seeing them on a Nintendo console any time soon.
Two, having a ton of exclusives but no multiplats....is almost counter productive from a fans point of view.
Having Mario and shit is great, but the overall library and gaming experience is still hurt badly since you do not have access to most of the big titles. In other words, from the perspective of someone who
only has a Nintendo system, games like Mass Effect, Street Fighter 4, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Final Fantasy etc might as well be exclusive because...
that individual cannot play them (that is exclusivity, is it not?). It is not a good thing to have zero third party support, and it actually makes the strength of having good exclusives pretty irrelevant.
It is probably why I would say that the PS3 has the strongest software line up, since they have most of the essential multiplat games with a strong core of exclusives.
As for the Xbox in itself, it isn't a coincidence that you're picking on it. People do not buy Xbox's for exclusive software (outside of their two Ips with some supplementary exclusives), they buy it for the premier service. Xbox live is their exclusive and their killer IP. You also get a great multimedia center and the arcade (it is strange that people bring up exclusives, but no one brings up the indie games for the 360 which is vastly superior to PSN and VC).
All in all, just having a fun debate with you, but really, there is no reason to get so hung up on exclusives. It is not a good thing at all for a console to give their consumer less options. There are enough exclusives that exist now that make it easy enough to decide what console one would like to buy.
The fact that the PS3 and 360 share so many games is actually a relief, because it means I won't have to
sacrifice not playing so many games in order to experience certain exclusives. I don't think it was very fun to have bought the Gamecube in order to play its exclusives and miss out on the ton of PS2 games because Nintendo was stubborn as hell in getting more third party support. I don't think there should be that quite big of a punishment because I want to play Mario.
I just worry that we'll get to that point where consoles begin to phase themselves out with redundancy between platforms. 
