They're one of the reasons I would love to see a single, unified tech for games (a la DVD, BR etc.). I hate the fact that, to play the best games available, I'd have to shell out on 2, 3, 4 or even 5 systems (EDIT: for clarification, I'm including home desktop and handhelds in this count).

I understand the developer's side of it and the manufacturer's, and I'd do the same in their shoes. But I'm not in their shoes, I'm in mine and the shoes are getting pricier and goddamn it I've only so much room in the wardrobe.

The fewer the better for me, since I'll only be buying 1 machine anytime soon. Not bothered about the Nintendo stuff anymore, unless they suddenly pull out a really good new Metroid (Ha!), so Bayonetta 2's probably the only game I care about missing there.

This gen the 360/PS3 exclusives didn't bother me much - I would've only missed a few things I cared about either way. Demon Souls was the one biggie, I suppose. But generally if the new gen settles down like that it'll be fine.

I'd prefer if 'exclusive' was synonymous with 'first party'. Company A chucking money at a 3rd party dev to stop Company B from releasing the game as well doesn't seem like its good for the consumer.

Doesn't matter as only Sony make first party exclusives worth having.
Trolololol

Third party exclusives are the work of the devil though.

For me a good thing, they're the reason you buy a console.

I hate what multiplats have become, people who compare Assassins Creed, CoD etc obviously didn't game in the 90s.

Think about SNES and MD versions of Aladdin that were completely different games. Even when the games were the same one version was usually far superior than the other, to the naked eye and not always on the same console.

This is also true of PS/N64. Each had their own individual versions of Wipeout, Destruction Derby, Ridge Racer etc and games that were the same like SNES/MD were clearly better on one than the other. Tony Hawks was better on PS, Shadowman was better on 64.

Those were consoles that were truly both worth owning, in part because of 3rd party exclusives let only first party.

Since PS2, everything is literally the same. PS2=GC=XBOX, PS3=360.

This is why I (I seem to be in the minority here) like the route Nintendo have taken post GC. Its different. Would we have been better off if Nintendo had made a PS360 box? We already had 2, would a 3rd version of Bayonetta made any difference? I'd rather have a Wii and Madworld as well as a PS3 with Bayonetta.

I prefer 360 and the PS3 over the Wii but I'd rather a Wii + PS3 OR 360 > PS3 & 360. Why have 2 copies of Marvel VS Capcom 3 when you can have a copy of Tatsunoku VS Capcom instead.

I hate this shit. That is all.

Regardless of what we want, and we are a dying breed, the next next gen will do away with consoles current format anyway so the idea of exclusives will also go away. Not sure how I'll feel about Nintendo no longer producing hardware, but it is ridiculous that we have to have multiple (I have 3 consoles) machines just to have the availability of all games.

In 10 years time I would expect that downloads are the norm and that exclusives will come from what service you sign up to, not what hardware you buy.

Vela wrote:

I'm of the same opinion of retro king. Without meaningful exclusives there is no point in anything except pc.

Do you mean there is no point in more than one platform? If there were no meaningful exclusives then you don't necessarily have to go for PC, just pick one platform.

Vela wrote:

What I'd rather is a choice of each platform having many, multiple exclusive games. Rather than a lotof uniformity.

Thats a perfect summary.

I find the similarities between 360 and PS3 depressing tbh. They're literally the same thing which makes the whole 'whats better' debate that more pathetic.

Most people I know who have both (myself included) have about 90% of their games on one and the other is just for the odd exclusive. I would prefer more exclusives to further justify owning console B.

Imagine if one had Arkham Asylum and the other Arkham City for example.

Yep. The choice used to be more than that too. Mario 64 and OoT, Nights and Panzer Dragoon Saga, Crash Bandicoot and FF7. Nowadays it's which Batman dlc suit you get.

^well put.

If there wasn't cross platform competition, fuck knows what price games would be now. Snes cartridge prices at today's rate? No thanks.

The majority of e.g. the Edge Readers' Top 20 games ever are exclusives.  I'm sure this tells us something.

RedDave2 wrote:

20 – World of Warcraft (Y - PC only)
19 – Majora’s Mask (Y - N64)
18 – Vice City (No)
17 – Chrono Trigger (Y - SNES)
16 – Portal (Y originally?, but not now)
15 – Red Dead Redemption (No)
14 – Bioshock (Y originally, but now PC too)
13 – Ico (Y - PS2)
12 – The Last of Us (Y - PS3)
11- Dark Souls (No)
10 – Super Mario Galaxy (Y - Wii)
9 – Metal Gear Solid (Y - PS1)
8 – Shadow of the Colossus (Y - PS2)
7 – Goldeneye (Y - N64)
6 – Halo (Y - Xbox)
5 – Resident Evil 4 (No?)
4 – Final Fantasy VII (Y - PS1)
3 – Half Life 2 (Y originally, but not now)
2 – Super Mario 64 
1 – The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

hylian_elf wrote:

Portal wasn't exclusive. 
Vice city was exclusive on PS2 for a few months at least
Resi 4 was GC exclusive for quite a while, no?

All 3 were exclusive for about a year on PC, PS2 and GCN respectively

I reckon I am/was right.

I get 10 points.