Is the pc the reason the 360 lacks in exclusives?

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]I dunno I still consider it MS exclusive I mean PC games are still running on Windows.ispeakfact

I love that pic :lol:

How does it lack in exclusives, when in 2012 alone has 10x more exlusives than PS3 ?

loosingENDS

nes, snes, genesis, dreamcast, ps1, ps2 and every other console ever made having one or two big games that dribbled out after the sixth year on the market = totally acceptable and natural and the way the lifespan of a console works.

xbox 360 having one or two big games dribbling out after the sixth year on the market = VERY BIG DEAL AND PROOF OF TEH FAILZ!!!

lol.... cows.... right?

is there anything that passes for a rational thought going on in those melons sitting at the top of their necks?

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]don't know, but I still wish they'd port Lost Odyssey to PCspsx_warrior

360 has plenty of exclusives and the best ones to boot. :P

In My Opinion.

Plus the fact, I just haven't been into the whole Movie game thing since SEGA CD so ya know, Sony will Neeeeed to do better. :P

How does it lack in exclusives, when in 2012 alone has 10x more exlusives than PS3 ?

loosingENDS

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

How does it lack in exclusives, when in 2012 alone has 10x more exlusives than PS3 ?

kraken2109

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

How does it lack in exclusives, when in 2012 alone has 10x more exlusives than PS3 ?

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

How does it lack in exclusives, when in 2012 alone has 10x more exlusives than PS3 ?

Riverwolf007

Well if the PS3 banishes from the face of the earth the 360 would have a lot more of exclusives than it would get with the PC disappearing.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Xbox is the evolution of the low-end PC.

Tikeio

Fixed.

:lol:

Well they do get Halo 4, and I think in real life people consider a game on 360 and PC to be exclusive. Mostly it's because PC gaming is the smallest community and games sell better on consoles, so I can see where they are coming from.

I think next gen MS will try to integrate Games for Windows Live with their console. But yes, right now the PS3 is dominating the 360 in great exclusives.

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]don't know, but I still wish they'd port Lost Odyssey to PCsIAmNot_fun

360 has plenty of exclusives and the best ones to boot. :P

Sounds like you have the answer to your question. If nothing really interests you on the system, I wouldn't buy it. Personally, I love Gears and Halo, and I buy almost every multiplat for my 360. Not going to lie to you, though...I doubt you are really going to see much exclusive-wise that's not kinect related until next gen.

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] Name them? I'd love to see your imaginary evidence.BattlefieldFan1

I think it is. Many games that 360 users claim to be exclusive, are also on the pc, and many 360 games that were exclusive, usually end up going multiplat. If the pc were to suddenly vanish from the earth, would the 360 library have a much larger, diverse exclusives library?

ispeakfact

If the PC was to suddenly vanish from the earth then you wouldnt have any new games on any consoles.

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

Plagueless

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

BattlefieldFan1

EDIT: OH LOL USER REVIEWS!!! You mean the ones that anyone that hasn't played the game can post??? :lol::lol::roll:

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

Plagueless

A little. I mean otherwise the 360 could have had more exclusives like: Alan Wake, Fable III and others I can't remember now.

no because microsoft had some failed exclusives last gen and they got burned now they're scared to release new ips

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

BattlefieldFan1

Your not taking into account troll user reviews, but you might be right to a point. I notice alot of Halo fans say they were dissapointed with Halo Reach and alot of Gears fans thought Gears 3 wasn't very good, mostly becasue it's really short.

I can kinda see where they are coming from with Gears, but not Reach. IMO Halo Reach is the second best Halo ever made, Halo CE will always be first though. I thought Halo 3 and ODST were the most dissapointing.

Based off the talks that I have with my Xbox friends they say they are growing tired of Halo and Gears and Fable. Most of them lost their interest with Halo when COD came out, and after they played Uncharted at my house they don't even like Gears much anymore (even though the games are nothing alike really).

And Fable is just too short and easy to be worth their money, what they want are new game sereis for the Xbox. And these are some pretty big 360 fanboys saying that, they are growing more and more interested in the PS3 every day.

[QUOTE="Plagueless"][QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Honestly, most games that you guys have, no one cares about. Your prime exclusives halo: reach and gears 3 are hated by 360 users. Mind you, they got a 7.6 and 7.5 respectively in user reviews. Yup. The average 360 user thinks gears and halo are mediocre at best.BattlefieldFan1

:P

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

ShadowMoses900

Your not taking into account troll user reviews, but you might be right to a point. I notice alot of Halo fans say they were dissapointed with Halo Reach and alot of Gears fans thought Gears 3 wasn't very good, mostly becasue it's really short.

I can kinda see where they are coming from with Gears, but not Reach. IMO Halo Reach is the second best Halo ever made, Halo CE will always be first though. I thought Halo 3 and ODST were the most dissapointing.

Based off the talks that I have with my Xbox friends they say they are growing tired of Halo and Gears and Fable. Most of them lost their interest with Halo when COD came out, and after they played Uncharted at my house they don't even like Gears much anymore (even though the games are nothing alike really).

And Fable is just too short and easy to be worth their money, what they want are new game sereis for the Xbox. And these are some pretty big 360 fanboys saying that, they are growing more and more interested in the PS3 every day.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

Plagueless

EDIT: OH LOL USER REVIEWS!!! You mean the ones that anyone that hasn't played the game can post??? :lol::lol::roll:

Hmm...that's funny, I remember you were bashing the PS3 version of COD because it had 3 million less players than the 360 version. 11 million PS3 compared to 14 million 360. And you bashed Uncharted becaue it had less players online than Halo, but according to your info Uncharted 3 had more people online than Reach.

Not saying it matters to me, as long as a game has a community that's all I care about. But I find it ironic that your own logic is going aganst yourself now. Not fun being a hypocirte is it?

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Honestly, most games that you guys have, no one cares about. Your prime exclusives halo: reach and gears 3 are hated by 360 users. Mind you, they got a 7.6 and 7.5 respectively in user reviews. Yup. The average 360 user thinks gears and halo are mediocre at best.ShadowMoses900

EDIT: OH LOL USER REVIEWS!!! You mean the ones that anyone that hasn't played the game can post??? :lol::lol::roll:

Hmm...that's funny, I remember you were bashing the PS3 version of COD because it had 3 million less players than the 360 version. 11 million PS3 compared to 14 million 360. And you bashed Uncharted becaue it had less players online than Halo, but according to your info Uncharted 3 had more people online than Reach.

Not saying it matters to me, as long as a game has a community that's all I care about. But I find it ironic that your own logic is going aganst yourself now. Not fun being a hypocirte is it?

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Honestly, most games that you guys have, no one cares about. Your prime exclusives halo: reach and gears 3 are hated by 360 users. Mind you, they got a 7.6 and 7.5 respectively in user reviews. Yup. The average 360 user thinks gears and halo are mediocre at best.BattlefieldFan1

Your not taking into account troll user reviews, but you might be right to a point. I notice alot of Halo fans say they were dissapointed with Halo Reach and alot of Gears fans thought Gears 3 wasn't very good, mostly becasue it's really short.

I can kinda see where they are coming from with Gears, but not Reach. IMO Halo Reach is the second best Halo ever made, Halo CE will always be first though. I thought Halo 3 and ODST were the most dissapointing.

Based off the talks that I have with my Xbox friends they say they are growing tired of Halo and Gears and Fable. Most of them lost their interest with Halo when COD came out, and after they played Uncharted at my house they don't even like Gears much anymore (even though the games are nothing alike really).

And Fable is just too short and easy to be worth their money, what they want are new game sereis for the Xbox. And these are some pretty big 360 fanboys saying that, they are growing more and more interested in the PS3 every day.

There are some pretty hardcore fanboys on here, your new so you might not know but there are people like William Baker, LoosENDS, Plaugeless ect...who's life mission is to hate the PS3 and I'm sure they go around dowrating and trolling in the PS3 reviews.

Just like how Arbitor, Tormentos, ATari Kid ect...go around down rating every 360 game. They are all fanatics, don't ask me why. They don't have lives I guess.

I only review games I actually played, and I gave Halo Reach a 9. It was the best shooter in 2010 IMO (or whatever year it came out). And I have NEVER played a single game this gen where I would have given a game a score of ZERO.

That's defiantely trolling, there has to be at least SOMETHING about the game you liked. The worst game I ever played this gen IMO was Too Human, terrible game. I played it with my friend, you controlled with the right thumbstick and the whole game was just broken. I would have given it a 1, that's how bad it was.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Plagueless"] lolwut? Halo Reach had over 125 THOUSAND players on it yesterday. You think people hate it? Gears 3 also had around 100k. I don't know where you got that from but you have nothing to support it.

EDIT: OH LOL USER REVIEWS!!! You mean the ones that anyone that hasn't played the game can post??? :lol::lol::roll:

BattlefieldFan1

Hmm...that's funny, I remember you were bashing the PS3 version of COD because it had 3 million less players than the 360 version. 11 million PS3 compared to 14 million 360. And you bashed Uncharted becaue it had less players online than Halo, but according to your info Uncharted 3 had more people online than Reach.

Not saying it matters to me, as long as a game has a community that's all I care about. But I find it ironic that your own logic is going aganst yourself now. Not fun being a hypocirte is it?

That wasn't my point, my point was that he is being a hypocrite and I am calling him out on it. Both systems have around the same number of people online, that was my other point. 11 million and 14 million isn't a massive difference, you can easily find people on boht versions.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Your not taking into account troll user reviews, but you might be right to a point. I notice alot of Halo fans say they were dissapointed with Halo Reach and alot of Gears fans thought Gears 3 wasn't very good, mostly becasue it's really short.

I can kinda see where they are coming from with Gears, but not Reach. IMO Halo Reach is the second best Halo ever made, Halo CE will always be first though. I thought Halo 3 and ODST were the most dissapointing.

Based off the talks that I have with my Xbox friends they say they are growing tired of Halo and Gears and Fable. Most of them lost their interest with Halo when COD came out, and after they played Uncharted at my house they don't even like Gears much anymore (even though the games are nothing alike really).

And Fable is just too short and easy to be worth their money, what they want are new game sereis for the Xbox. And these are some pretty big 360 fanboys saying that, they are growing more and more interested in the PS3 every day.

ShadowMoses900

There are some pretty hardcore fanboys on here, your new so you might not know but there are people like William Baker, LoosENDS, Plaugeless ect...who's life mission is to hate the PS3 and I'm sure they go around dowrating and trolling in the PS3 reviews.

Just like how Arbitor, Tormentos, ATari Kid ect...go around down rating every 360 game. They are all fanatics, don't ask me why. They don't have lives I guess.

I only review games I actually played, and I gave Halo Reach a 9. It was the best shooter in 2010 IMO (or whatever year it came out). And I have NEVER played a single game this gen where I would have given a game a score of ZERO.

That's defiantely trolling, there has to be at least SOMETHING about the game you liked. The worst game I ever played this gen IMO was Too Human, terrible game. I played it with my friend, you controlled with the right thumbstick and the whole game was just broken. I would have given it a 1, that's how bad it was.

I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.BattlefieldFan1

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.CaseyWegner

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

Xbox is the evolution of PC.

waltefmoney

Joke post? I can do more things with my PC than a 360 can do and for all of those things my PC does it better. How is that an evolution?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.BattlefieldFan1

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

no. i did read through them but seeing you brush it off is quite silly. you think for some reason that 360 fanboys would post troll scores and ps3 fanboys wouldn't? no score of zero or oneislegitimate no matter how you hide it.

why are you calling me an xbot? :|

Who is the more annoying fanboy, ispeakfact or loosingends?

The former jacks off to his own trolling while the latter probably actually believes what he is saying, but the question still stands.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.CaseyWegner

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

edit: found it.

user reviews are notorious for being bad in all kinds of different ways.

here is scientific americans article on it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=manipulation-of-the-crowd

Web sites such as Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp have long depended on customers to rate books, hotels and restaurants. The philosophy behind this so-called crowdsourcing strategy holds that the truest and most accurate evaluations will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people. Yet a closer look reveals that the wisdom of crowds may neither be wise nor necessarily made by a crowd. Its judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.

and this from the information ethics roundtable at the university of arizona

Gaming the System: A Case Study
Manipulation of Online Consumer Reviews

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bfulton/ierposter/

the problem is so bad that for you to even get the actual business specific scientific papers that break down the problem you have to read through things like this:

Built upon the discretionary accrual-based earnings management framework, our paper develops a discretionary manipulation proxy to study the management of online reviews. We reveal that fraudulent review manipulation is a serious problem for 1) non-bestseller books; 2) books whose reviews are **** fied as not very helpful; 3) books that experience greater variability in the helpfulness of their online reviews; and 4) popular books as well as high-priced books. We also show that review management decreases with the passage of time. Just like fraudulent earnings management, manipulated online reviews reflect inauthentic information from which consumers might derive wrong valuation especially for books with the above characteristics and be persuaded to purchase the wrong item. The findings from this research sound a note of caution for all consumers that make use of online reviews of books for making purchases and encourage them to delve deeper into the reviews without getting trapped in their fraudulent manipulation.

and give them money.

ok, so this specific one is for books but the same process happens to other media and i am sure they charge for dry academic analysis of those too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923610001375

[QUOTE="IAmNot_fun"][QUOTE="SecretPolice"]L.O. 2 please. :D

360 has plenty of exclusives and the best ones to boot. :P

clone01

Sounds like you have the answer to your question. If nothing really interests you on the system, I wouldn't buy it. Personally, I love Gears and Halo, and I buy almost every multiplat for my 360. Not going to lie to you, though...I doubt you are really going to see much exclusive-wise that's not kinect related until next gen.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

CaseyWegner

no. i did read through them but seeing you brush it off is quite silly. you think for some reason that 360 fanboys would post troll scores and ps3 fanboys wouldn't? no score of zero or oneislegitimate no matter how you hide it.

why are you calling me an xbot? :|

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.Riverwolf007

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"]I just love how the xbots claim to have the best exclusives when even their own kind don't like their exclusives. Halo: Reach got a 7.6 and Gears 3 got a 7.5 in user reviews. It's so sad that they're psychologically "forced" to buy these pitiful amount of mediocre exclusives because they don't have anything else to buy and they want to prove to PC and PS3 gamers that they have something worthwhile to play. It's very funny.Riverwolf007

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

i did not know that. i suppose there's no harm in me trying, though.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

CaseyWegner

i did not know that. i suppose there's no harm in me trying, though.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

BattlefieldFan1

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

Strutten

Lol hated wuut? are cows grasping this much now wow ? btw you shouldnt be the battlefieldfan from LoT huh ? if so zero credibility to you.. horrendous trollin you did there and got debunked many many times ? if thats were you if not just bare over with that .. but no mate they aint hated by xbox gamers at all .. that score could just be cows aswell lems.. by hated not at all ..

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

BattlefieldFan1

Lol hated wuut? are cows grasping this much now wow ? btw you shouldnt be the battlefieldfan from LoT huh ? if so zero credibility to you.. horrendous trollin you did there and got debunked many many times ? if thats were you if not just bare over with that .. but no mate they aint hated by xbox gamers at all .. that score could just be cows aswell lems.. by hated not at all ..

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Plagueless"]

No. The 360 doesn't need exclusives, it has games. (296 AA+ compared to the PS3's 206 I might add)

In the real world, console gamers and PC gamers don't intertwine much. When most gamers buy a console, they don't look and see if that game is on PC, they look and see if it is on another console. When people looking to buy a console see the 360 they see tons of games that while they may not be exclusive, they are not on the other platforms they are considering.

For Example:

The 360 has:

Left 4 Dead

Mass Effect

Witcher 2, etc.

All of these games are not exclusive, but to the average console customer they carry the same weight as an exclusive.

Just because a game is on console and PC does not mean it is irrelevant to the sale of a console, because to the console gamer it IS and exclusive.

Strutten

Lol hated wuut? are cows grasping this much now wow ? btw you shouldnt be the battlefieldfan from LoT huh ? if so zero credibility to you.. horrendous trollin you did there and got debunked many many times ? if thats were you if not just bare over with that .. but no mate they aint hated by xbox gamers at all .. that score could just be cows aswell lems.. by hated not at all ..

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

let's see. why on earth would you trust user reviews? people post scores to mess with them all the time. despite that,halo reachhas 847 positive reviews, 76 mixed reviews, and only 176 negative reviews. whatare you trying to prove?

CaseyWegner

i did not know that. i suppose there's no harm in me trying, though.

user reviews are notorious for being bad in all kinds of different ways.

here is scientific americans article on it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=manipulation-of-the-crowd

Web sites such as Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp have long depended on customers to rate books, hotels and restaurants. The philosophy behind this so-called crowdsourcing strategy holds that the truest and most accurate evaluations will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people. Yet a closer look reveals that the wisdom of crowds may neither be wise nor necessarily made by a crowd. Its judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.

and this from the information ethics roundtable at the university of arizona

Gaming the System: A Case Study
Manipulation of Online Consumer Reviews

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bfulton/ierposter/

the problem is so bad that for you to even get the actual business specific scientific papers that break down the problem you have to read through things like this:

Built upon the discretionary accrual-based earnings management framework, our paper develops a discretionary manipulation proxy to study the management of online reviews. We reveal that fraudulent review manipulation is a serious problem for 1) non-bestseller books; 2) books whose reviews are **** fied as not very helpful; 3) books that experience greater variability in the helpfulness of their online reviews; and 4) popular books as well as high-priced books. We also show that review management decreases with the passage of time. Just like fraudulent earnings management, manipulated online reviews reflect inauthentic information from which consumers might derive wrong valuation especially for books with the above characteristics and be persuaded to purchase the wrong item. The findings from this research sound a note of caution for all consumers that make use of online reviews of books for making purchases and encourage them to delve deeper into the reviews without getting trapped in their fraudulent manipulation.

and give them money.

ok, so this specific one is for books but the same process happens to other media and i am sure they charge for dry academic analysis of those too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923610001375

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]bzzzt sorry that does not work with him. i tried last night to explain how notorious user reviews are for accuracy and posted references from scientific american and other academic sources and the reply was some rant about gears of wa

Riverwolf007

i did not know that. i suppose there's no harm in me trying, though.

user reviews are notorious for being bad in all kinds of different ways.

here is scientific americans article on it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=manipulation-of-the-crowd

Web sites such as Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp have long depended on customers to rate books, hotels and restaurants. The philosophy behind this so-called crowdsourcing strategy holds that the truest and most accurate evaluations will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people. Yet a closer look reveals that the wisdom of crowds may neither be wise nor necessarily made by a crowd. Its judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.

and this from the information ethics roundtable at the university of arizona

Gaming the System: A Case Study
Manipulation of Online Consumer Reviews

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bfulton/ierposter/

the problem is so bad that for you to even get the actual business specific scientific papers that break down the problem you have to read through things like this:

Built upon the discretionary accrual-based earnings management framework, our paper develops a discretionary manipulation proxy to study the management of online reviews. We reveal that fraudulent review manipulation is a serious problem for 1) non-bestseller books; 2) books whose reviews are **** fied as not very helpful; 3) books that experience greater variability in the helpfulness of their online reviews; and 4) popular books as well as high-priced books. We also show that review management decreases with the passage of time. Just like fraudulent earnings management, manipulated online reviews reflect inauthentic information from which consumers might derive wrong valuation especially for books with the above characteristics and be persuaded to purchase the wrong item. The findings from this research sound a note of caution for all consumers that make use of online reviews of books for making purchases and encourage them to delve deeper into the reviews without getting trapped in their fraudulent manipulation.

and give them money.

ok, so this specific one is for books but the same process happens to other media and i am sure they charge for dry academic analysis of those too.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923610001375