Is the pc the reason the 360 lacks in exclusives?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] I see you haven't read the latter posts, have you? Your troll rating excuse might make sense if you were defending Uncharted 2 + 3, as both those games had ratings from 360 fanboys. However, that excuse is illegitimate when talking about Gears 3 and Reach, as both these games didn't have a single troll review. I tell you xbots again and again, read the **** thing before pulling out the troll rating card as your excuse.BattlefieldFan1

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? :|

you don't see any zeroes or ones? :|

and again, why are you calling me an xbot?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

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

BattlefieldFan1

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

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="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? :|

CaseyWegner

you don't see any zeroes or ones? :|

and again, why are you calling me an xbot?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]here is what i posted last night before i came to the conclusion that dude is just totally delusional and completely ruled by emotion and gave up.

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

Riverwolf007

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Yeah, you definitely lack logic. I love how you try to simplify an complex process by calling it off as "troll reviews skewing score". There are anomalies, and gears 3 and reach reviews were anomalies.BattlefieldFan1

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

it is like you think if you insult some old game i am done with it hurts me in some way.

what a funny little person you are.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] *yawn* Not seeing any troll reviews. Try again.BattlefieldFan1

you don't see any zeroes or ones? :|

and again, why are you calling me an xbot?

outlining why they hated it doesn't mean it's not a troll review. you can type whatever you want and then attach any score to it. show me some of these uncharted reviewsthat you consider to be troll reviews.

i'm definitely a troll review?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]hey everybody look at me! i have no idea on how quotations work now it is time for a rant on gears of war woop woop!

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

Riverwolf007

it is like you think if you insult some old game i am done with it hurts me in some way.

what a funny little person you are.

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

you don't see any zeroes or ones? :|

and again, why are you calling me an xbot?

CaseyWegner

outlining why they hated it doesn't mean it's not a troll review. you can type whatever you want and then attach any score to it. show me some of these uncharted reviewsthat you consider to be troll reviews.

i'm definitely a troll review?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Yeah, you definitely lack logic. I love how you try to simplify an complex process by calling it off as "troll reviews skewing score". There are anomalies, and gears 3 and reach reviews were anomalies.BattlefieldFan1

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

is the average 360 user an average of the 360 users? that's what you are suggesting by looking at an average of scores. as i mentioned, the game has an overwhelming number of positive scores and a relatively low number of negative scores. the "mixed reviews" are the smallest section of all so i ask again, what are you trying to prove?

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]hey everybody look at me! i have no idea on how quotations work now it is time for a rant on gears of war woop woop!

:lol:

thanks for helping me make my point.

CaseyWegner

is the average 360 user an average of the 360 users? that's what you are suggesting by looking at an average of scores. as i mentioned, the game has an overwhelming number of positive scores and a relatively low number of negative scores. the "mixed reviews" are the smallest section of all so i ask again, what are you trying to prove?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] If it's impossible for a game to get a 0 or 1, why would such ratings exist? Could it be that some people genuinely hated the game with all their might? There are a total of 14 0s and 1 1, and each of those reviews outlined what they hated about the game. I said this over and over again, there are no troll reviews, but I can see that you definitely are one.BattlefieldFan1

outlining why they hated it doesn't mean it's not a troll review. you can type whatever you want and then attach any score to it. show me some of these uncharted reviewsthat you consider to be troll reviews.

i'm definitely a troll review?

you don't have to do any research in order to do that. the reviews are so generic. you also think that ps3 fanboys haven't played the game? that's just naive. where are the examples i asked you for? why do you continue to call me a lemming?

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

outlining why they hated it doesn't mean it's not a troll review. you can type whatever you want and then attach any score to it. show me some of these uncharted reviewsthat you consider to be troll reviews.

i'm definitely a troll review?

CaseyWegner

you don't have to do any research in order to do that. the reviews are so generic. you also think that ps3 fanboys haven't played the game? that's just naive. where are the examples i asked you for? why do you continue to call me a lemming?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] As we all can see, this is a troll avoiding the question. You can't admit the fact that gears 3 and reach were both mediocre at best and that the average 360 user admits it. Please, no crying and try to control yourself. And go see a psychiatrist. Your conspiracy theory garbage is growing boring and stale. At least come up with a new, more plausible excuse.BattlefieldFan1

is the average 360 user an average of the 360 users? that's what you are suggesting by looking at an average of scores. as i mentioned, the game has an overwhelming number of positive scores and a relatively low number of negative scores. the "mixed reviews" are the smallest section of all so i ask again, what are you trying to prove?

what are you talking about? there are scores of all sorts scattered around for games. people have plenty of varying opinions about them. it's not just "good" or "sucks". look at other sources. the game has a 91% critical average on metacritic and an 89% userscore average here on gamespot. it's more likely that you are trying to push your view of the game on others instead of analyzing what is really out there.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Ahh, once again, you use your conspiracy theory nonsense to try to save face. You really think hundreds of people spent hours researching this game just to write a lengthy review about why they hated and give specific facts about the game just to give this a low score to bring the average down to 7.5? Yeah, you definitely need to go see a psychiatrist.BattlefieldFan1

you don't have to do any research in order to do that. the reviews are so generic. you also think that ps3 fanboys haven't played the game? that's just naive. where are the examples i asked you for? why do you continue to call me a lemming?

no. i think they spent $60 to play a high scoring game because they wanted to. i don't know where you got what you just said.

where's the evidence i asked for?

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

is the average 360 user an average of the 360 users? that's what you are suggesting by looking at an average of scores. as i mentioned, the game has an overwhelming number of positive scores and a relatively low number of negative scores. the "mixed reviews" are the smallest section of all so i ask again, what are you trying to prove?

CaseyWegner

what are you talking about? there are scores of all sorts scattered around for games. people have plenty of varying opinions about them. it's not just "good" or "sucks". look at other sources. the game has a 91% critical average on metacritic and an 89% userscore average here on gamespot. it's more likely that you are trying to push your view of the game on others instead of analyzing what is really out there.

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

you don't have to do any research in order to do that. the reviews are so generic. you also think that ps3 fanboys haven't played the game? that's just naive. where are the examples i asked you for? why do you continue to call me a lemming?

CaseyWegner

no. i think they spent $60 to play a high scoring game because they wanted to. i don't know where you got what you just said.

where's the evidence i asked for?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] That's what we can assume at best. The consumer knows only 2 things about games: Is it good or does it suck? There is rarely any in between. Even if the game felt meh/average to you, the average gamer will give it a 0-5. The average of those scores would give a somewhat accurate gauge of how you'll feel once you've played the game.BattlefieldFan1

what are you talking about? there are scores of all sorts scattered around for games. people have plenty of varying opinions about them. it's not just "good" or "sucks". look at other sources. the game has a 91% critical average on metacritic and an 89% userscore average here on gamespot. it's more likely that you are trying to push your view of the game on others instead of analyzing what is really out there.

i think you need a lesson on anomalies. the overwhelming majority of people reviewed halo reach favorably. the low scores can be considered anomalies. where are you getting this "most games" nonsense from and where's the evidence i asked for?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Lol... That's good. At least this is a new one. You think hundreds of PS3 fanboys wasted $60 to play through this game just to know specific details about the game and give it a 0 so they don't seem like troll ratings? Wow, you're definitely creative.BattlefieldFan1

no. i think they spent $60 to play a high scoring game because they wanted to. i don't know where you got what you just said.

where's the evidence i asked for?

how do you know they were severely disappointed by halo reach? why are those low scores legitimate while the low scores, troll reviews, thatthe uncharted games get (which you still haven't shown me) aren't legitimate? you think there is something fundamentally different between 360 and ps3fanboys? i really wouldn't be saying that other people have conspiracy theories if i were you.

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

what are you talking about? there are scores of all sorts scattered around for games. people have plenty of varying opinions about them. it's not just "good" or "sucks". look at other sources. the game has a 91% critical average on metacritic and an 89% userscore average here on gamespot. it's more likely that you are trying to push your view of the game on others instead of analyzing what is really out there.

CaseyWegner

i think you need a lesson on anomalies. the overwhelming majority of people reviewed halo reach favorably. the low scores can be considered anomalies. where are you getting this "most games" nonsense from and where's the evidence i asked for?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Ahh. There we go. You're starting to understand the concept of anomalies. Bravo, kid. You're smarter than I thought. But in this scenario, I'm talking about most games, not the few that have an even distribution of ratings. Out of the 3 rating categories, mixed is likely to be the least picked.BattlefieldFan1

i think you need a lesson on anomalies. the overwhelming majority of people reviewed halo reach favorably. the low scores can be considered anomalies. where are you getting this "most games" nonsense from and where's the evidence i asked for?

i have asked you repeatedly for evidence and you have shown me nothing. where is it? you are painting the game with your own opinion. i'm being objective. if you can't provide evidence for what i'm asking for, actual reviews that you consider to be troll reviews, then this "conversation" is over.

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

i think you need a lesson on anomalies. the overwhelming majority of people reviewed halo reach favorably. the low scores can be considered anomalies. where are you getting this "most games" nonsense from and where's the evidence i asked for?

CaseyWegner

i have asked you repeatedly for evidence and you have shown me nothing. where is it? you are painting the game with your own opinion. i'm being objective. if you can't provide evidence for what i'm asking for, actual reviews that you consider to be troll reviews, then this "conversation" is over.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Just go search up the most popular games. It's a trend. Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 Infamous 1 + 2 Heavy Rain LBP 1 + 2 And so on and so forth. And there were 252 reviews that weren't favorable out of 1099 ratings. That's around 23%. You think fanboys wouldn't give this game a 10? They're diehard xbots and are chemically imbalanced and on the verge of breakdown. They have to give this a 10 because it's their last chance at showing the rest of the gaming world that they have something good to play, but that still failed miserably. In the end, the truth prevailed and that game got what it deserved: a 7.6.BattlefieldFan1

i have asked you repeatedly for evidence and you have shown me nothing. where is it? you are painting the game with your own opinion. i'm being objective. if you can't provide evidence for what i'm asking for, actual reviews that you consider to be troll reviews, then this "conversation" is over.

then show me. just so we're on the same page, you're talking abouta review such as the one belowNOT beinga troll review based on your own definition? :|

"why the hell does anyone like halo???one of the worst games in the world ????nd the visuals or graphics not better than any game!!!!!!!!!!!!multiplayer gimme abreak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

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

i have asked you repeatedly for evidence and you have shown me nothing. where is it? you are painting the game with your own opinion. i'm being objective. if you can't provide evidence for what i'm asking for, actual reviews that you consider to be troll reviews, then this "conversation" is over.

CaseyWegner

then show me.

then tell me how these halo reach threads aren't troll reviews...

"why the hell does anyone like halo???one of the worst games in the world ????nd the visuals or graphics not better than any game!!!!!!!!!!!!multiplayer gimme abreak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

"The worst Halo game added to the series without a doubt. Terrible, cliche and boring campaign. And a gimmicky, CoD style multiplayer. An abomination to what makes a "Halo" game. Its no wonder the population is below 15k on a regular basis. I would not recommend to buy, my disc was destroyed with a sledge hammer."

"I hat gunz. They bleed peepies. I love momy more than gun. They give us fun to. i hat fun. We should give games like pong bettre ratings. im 5 :D. Turn six yesterday fun fun weird :$. I hat gay."

"I'm new to this franchise. not kidding. and so far this game bores me. the campaign is slick so far, but i don't think I'll pick it up once i begin playing a new game. can anyone tell me why this game is worth my time?"

"Halo: Reach Around! Bored yet? I gave 2 but really it at least 4. I played one Halo before on PC and it quite good but I prefer Riven. Whats up with Master Chef? He no cook anything anyway."

then tell me how these halo reach threads aren't troll reviews...

"why the hell does anyone like halo???one of the worst games in the world ????nd the visuals or graphics not better than any game!!!!!!!!!!!!multiplayer gimme abreak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

"The worst Halo game added to the series without a doubt. Terrible, cliche and boring campaign. And a gimmicky, CoD style multiplayer. An abomination to what makes a "Halo" game. Its no wonder the population is below 15k on a regular basis. I would not recommend to buy, my disc was destroyed with a sledge hammer."

"I hat gunz. They bleed peepies. I love momy more than gun. They give us fun to. i hat fun. We should give games like pong bettre ratings. im 5 :D. Turn six yesterday fun fun weird :$. I hat gay."

"I'm new to this franchise. not kidding. and so far this game bores me. the campaign is slick so far, but i don't think I'll pick it up once i begin playing a new game. can anyone tell me why this game is worth my time?"

"Halo: Reach Around! Bored yet? I gave 2 but really it at least 4. I played one Halo before on PC and it quite good but I prefer Riven. Whats up with Master Chef? He no cook anything anyway."

CaseyWegner

okay. you're just trolling. all done. i gave you a list of non-specific troll reviews that are just like the ones you presented but you brush them off just because they're about halo reach and not uncharted. bye bye, now.

okay. you're just trolling. all done. i gave you a list of non-specific troll reviews that are just like the ones you presented but you brush them off just because they're about halo reach and not uncharted. bye bye, now.

CaseyWegner

Xbox 360 Exclusives for 2012 (24)

Ryse (exclusive)
Fable Journey (exclusive)
Crimson Dragon (exclusive)
Halo 4 (exclusive)
Dust Elysian Tale (exclusive)
Haunt (exclusive)
Star Wars (exclusive)
Steel Batallion (exclusive)
Battleblock Theater (exclusive)
Bloogforge (exclusive)
****3 Zombi MMO (exclusive)
Diabolical Pitch (exclusive)
Hybrid (exclusive)
Trials Evolution (exclusive)
Alan Wake American Nightmare (exclusive)
Sine Mora (exclusive)
Dead Light (exclusive)
Spelunky (exclusive)
Happy Wars (exclusive)
Mark of the Ninja (exclusive)
Forza Horizon (exclusive)
Kinect Rush (exclusive)
Fable: Heroes (exclusive)
Wreckateer (exclusive)

PC/360 only games

Witcher 2 (PC/360 only)
FEZ (PC/360 only)
Minecraft (PC/360 only)
Owlboy (PC/360 only)
Capsized (PC/360 only)
Dungeon Fighter Live (PC/360 only, enchanced for Live)
Laika Believes (PC/360 only)

PS3/360 only games

FF13-2 (PS3/360 only)
Dragon Dogma (PS3/360 only)
Asura's Wrath (PS3/360 only)
Overstrike (PS3/360 only)
I am alive
Metal Gears Solid Rising
Anarchy Reigns
Azura Wrath
Binary Domain
Armored Core
Devil may cry
Silent Hill downpour
Neverdead
Ninja Gaiden 3
Soul calibur 5
Dead or alive 5

Special cases

Skyrim timed exclusive DLC expansions (timed exclusive)
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (Kinect exclusive features)
Exclusive Kinect support for Mass Effect 3 (Kinect exclusive features)

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

then tell me how these halo reach threads aren't troll reviews...

"why the hell does anyone like halo???one of the worst games in the world ????nd the visuals or graphics not better than any game!!!!!!!!!!!!multiplayer gimme abreak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

"The worst Halo game added to the series without a doubt. Terrible, cliche and boring campaign. And a gimmicky, CoD style multiplayer. An abomination to what makes a "Halo" game. Its no wonder the population is below 15k on a regular basis. I would not recommend to buy, my disc was destroyed with a sledge hammer."

"I hat gunz. They bleed peepies. I love momy more than gun. They give us fun to. i hat fun. We should give games like pong bettre ratings. im 5 :D. Turn six yesterday fun fun weird :$. I hat gay."

"I'm new to this franchise. not kidding. and so far this game bores me. the campaign is slick so far, but i don't think I'll pick it up once i begin playing a new game. can anyone tell me why this game is worth my time?"

"Halo: Reach Around! Bored yet? I gave 2 but really it at least 4. I played one Halo before on PC and it quite good but I prefer Riven. Whats up with Master Chef? He no cook anything anyway."

BattlefieldFan1

that's some epic trollage there battlefield fan

okay. you're just trolling. all done. i gave you a list of non-specific troll reviews that are just like the ones you presented but you brush them off just because they're about halo reach and not uncharted. bye bye, now.

CaseyWegner

you got totally suckerd into that whole derp filled exchange and look at where it got you. lol.

Special cases

Skyrim timed exclusive DLC expansions (timed exclusive)
Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (Kinect exclusive features)
Exclusive Kinect support for Mass Effect 3 (Kinect exclusive features)

loosingENDS

that does not make them exclusive. not all that special.

pc/360 only games suck anyways not a big deal, and not many of them anyways 360 has no gamePinnacleGamingP

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]pc/360 only games suck anyways not a big deal, and not many of them anyways 360 has no gameclone01

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]pc/360 only games suck anyways not a big deal, and not many of them anyways 360 has no gamelawlessx

Well if major hits like Gears, Halo, Fable and other ''System sellers'' are also on PC, then what does the 360 have besides Halo spinoffs and Forza?

It's Microsoft's fault, they're too focused on Kinect.

DeadMan1290

I'd say MS is the reason the 360 lacks exclusives.

MlauTheDaft

we have a winner!

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="BattlefieldFan1"] Ahh. There we go. You're starting to understand the concept of anomalies. Bravo, kid. You're smarter than I thought. But in this scenario, I'm talking about most games, not the few that have an even distribution of ratings. Out of the 3 rating categories, mixed is likely to be the least picked.BattlefieldFan1

i think you need a lesson on anomalies. the overwhelming majority of people reviewed halo reach favorably. the low scores can be considered anomalies. where are you getting this "most games" nonsense from and where's the evidence i asked for?

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

rofl, you could say the same thing about the PC, where if the 360 vanished the PC would have a lot

of exclusives. Honestly if the 360 didn't happen at all and it was only PS3, Wii and PC. Majority

of gamers would be playing on the PC.

I'd say MS is the reason the 360 lacks exclusives.

MlauTheDaft

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="clone01"] I don't envy you, arbitor...you're really missing out. BTW, still waiting on that gamertag.clone01

You gotta give it to him, it takes guts to come back after being so humiliated when we found out he was a mummy/underage loving crazy fanboy man. :lol:

That Battlefieldfan troll, i'm thinking he's also a previous member as most of the most ridiculous trolls usually are... i wonder.

Oh and on topic, the 360 lacks exclusives because MS have stopped making or funding them.

lol your such a fool.
Lets see the 360 still has more exclusive games than the ps3...your just talking about High scoring exclusives regular old exclusive list shows 360 at more, The ps3 didn't beat the 360 till about a year and a half 2 years ago in high scoring exclusives.

360 has about the same number of A+ real exclusives as PS3. 360/PC games are just a bonus.