Why Bioshock, Gears, Mass Effect ARE exclusive

Another thread asks this:

Has Xbox 360 Exclusive Come To Mean Exclusive Except For The PC?

The very simple reason is this. The entire point of specifying whether something is exclusive is to show that your console of preference has something that the other one does not have. This implies that you are comparing systems that are in direct competition with one another. Xbox360 and PS3 are VERY similar and therefore compete directly for their market share in ways that PC gaming does not.

A little history to flesh this out:

During the days of PS1 MS realized that PC gaming was dying at the hands of SONY and MS was not happy about this because PC gaming was largely their domain. Declining PC gaming means declining profits and diminishing returns from DirectX. MS hatched a plan to combat this and developed the "DirectXbox" later dubbed the XboX.

I don't think it is fair to say that PC gaming is dying. The implication is that it will cease alltogether and that is not likely. However the reality is that since the era of PS1 the market has allowed alternative ways to experience things previously only available to PC gamers. Anyone who has frequented game stores for many years must have noticed the increasingly shrinking PC Game shelves. This is not because PC gaming is on the rise that is for sure.

Within the market cheaper, simpler alternatives were created and hence we have gaming in its current state.

Main point is that this is all a power struggle of MS vs. SONY. If a title is Xbox 360/ Windows only the fact still remains that MS is still raking in profits by retaining the remaining PC fans and with XboX taking back what was lost in the PS1 era.

This is completely logical for MS to do this becuase the purpose of the XBOX was to stop Sony from undermining their PC gaming profits and it would be counterproductive if the xbox did the same thing so providing those same games for Windows makes perfect sense.

DMC4 ----> 360 =/= Gears ----> PC

This argument is mainly just PS3 fans trying to distract people from their lack of AAA exclusives and their loss of games like Assassain's Creed and Devil May Cry 4 to the 360.

When Gears comes to PS3 then we can talk. Until then there is no debate those games are still MS exclusive as long as you can't play them on something with a SONY, Nintendo, or whatever else logo.

EDIT: People posting here have been genreally reasonable and positive even in disagreemnet, however, there are some who are so annoyed by the prospect of altering the status quo that they have resorted to flaming( which will be reported and hopefully moderated). Im trying to keep this reasonble so stick to the topic at hand. Use the following as a guideline. If you want to disprove me then here is where to start:

The aim simply is to allow things to be more correct.

The current SW terminology leads to the incorrect scenario of

Gears ---> PC = DMC4 ----->360

These two scenarios have drastically different ramifications for gamers, sales, and developers and it is simply wrong to regard them as being the same. This is for lack of proper categorization terminology that reality is distorted. Some argue against any change as the distorted reality benefits their cause here.

Another thread asks this:

Has Xbox 360 Exclusive Come To Mean Exclusive Except For The PC?

The very simple reason is this. The entire point of specifying whether something is exclusive is to show that your console of preference has something that the other one does not have. This implies that you are comparing systems that are in direct competition with one another. Xbox360 and PS3 are VERY similar and therefore compete directly for their market share in ways that PC gaming does not.

A little history to flesh this out:

During the days of PS1 MS realized that PC gaming was dying at the hands of SONY and MS was not happy about this because PC gaming was largely their domain. Declining PC gaming means declining profits and diminishing returns from DirectX. MS hatched a plan to combat this and developed the "DirectXbox" later dubbed the XboX.

I don't think it is fair to say that PC gaming is dying. The implication is that it will cease alltogether and that is not likely. However the reality is that since the era of PS1 the market has allowed alternative ways to experience things previously only available to PC gamers. Anyone who has frequented game stores for many years must have noticed the increasingly shrinking PC Game shelves. This is not because PC gaming is on the rise that is for sure.

Within the market cheaper, simpler alternatives were created and hence we have gaming in its current state.

Main point is that this is all a power struggle of MS vs. SONY. If a title is Xbox 360/ Windows only the fact still remains that MS is still raking in profits by retaining the remaining PC fans and with XboX taking back what was lost in the PS1 era.

This is completely logical for MS to do this becuase the purpose of the XBOX was to stop Sony from undermining their PC gaming profits and it would be counterproductive if the xbox did the same thing so providing those same games for Windows makes perfect sense.

DMC4 ----> 360 =/= Gears ----> PC

This argument is mainly just PS3 fans trying to distract people from their lack of AAA exclusives and their loss of games like Assassain's Creed and Devil May Cry 4 to the 360.

When Gears comes to PS3 then we can talk. Until then there is no debate those games are still MS exclusive as long as you can't play them on something with a SONY, Nintendo, or whatever else logo.

No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. DerekLoffin

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

This is SYSTEM Wars. Not CONSOLE wars. Why do people seem to forget it?

If a game is available on more than one platform, it is a multi-platform. Simple as that.

If you really want those terms to be changed, perhaps you should request it to be chnaged from SYSTEM wars to Console Wars =]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. L1qu1dSword

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

Andrew_Xavier

"console exclusive", "exclusive", etc...they're just definitions used to categorize games in SW. The fact remains that Gears and Mass Effect provide a competitive advantage against the PS3.

The point I'm trying to make is that that value proposition matters in terms of persuading potential consumers on the fence between a 360 and a PS3. And so long as these "console exclusives" help push the consumer towards one console versus another, they ought to be identified separately from "console multiplat" games.

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. L1qu1dSword

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

Okay, but, no one is saying there is one exclusive branch of the military :D

This is SYSTEM Wars. Not CONSOLE wars. Why do people seem to forget it?

If a game is available on more than one platform, it is a multi-platform. Simple as that.

If you really want those terms to be changed, perhaps you should request it to be chnaged from SYSTEM wars to Console Wars =]

jonnyt61

This is why system wars rules are illogical. You are trying to tell me that having someone move from the American NAVY to the American ARMY is the same thing as the same soldier going to China's army.

At the end of the day an MS exclusive is still a game that can't be played on Nintendo or SONY consoles.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

fuzzysquash

"console exclusive", "exclusive", etc...they're just definitions used to categorize games in SW. The fact remains that Gears and Mass Effect provide a competitive advantage against the PS3.

The point I'm trying to make is that that value proposition matters in terms of persuading potential consumers on the fence between a 360 and a PS3. And so long as these "console exclusives" help push the consumer towards one console versus another, they ought to be identified separately from "console multiplat" games.

Okay, then we need to make every multiplat that isn't on the wii a ps3/x360 exclusive too, and any game that is on wii/ps2 a ps2/wii exclusive, and any game that is on the ps3/pc a ps3/pc exclusive, pretty much making every game some form of exclusive.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. L1qu1dSword

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. L1qu1dSword

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Because I don't pay anything to MS when I buy a game on PC. My OS is already paid for long ago, MS isn't getting any more money out of it. This also means they don't get me to buy a 360, losing them money.

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

L1qu1dSword

Yippie, and Wii and 360 don't compete in the same way, neither do Wii and PS3, or PC and Wii, etc, etc. It's a empty consideration as they still don't have the same value as a true exclusive, and trying to make out like they do is just plain fanboyism.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

fuzzysquash

"console exclusive", "exclusive", etc...they're just definitions used to categorize games in SW. The fact remains that Gears and Mass Effect provide a competitive advantage against the PS3.

The point I'm trying to make is that that value proposition matters in terms of persuading potential consumers on the fence between a 360 and a PS3. And so long as these "console exclusives" help push the consumer towards one console versus another, they ought to be identified separately from "console multiplat" games.

I agree totally.

Think about the electoral college. James Madison was the first to admit these rules did not make sense but people stuck with it to preserve their power.

In the same way people are sticking to outdated SW terminology simply because they find it gives them some leverage in SW arguments. These same people forget that this supposed SW law has evolved to get where it is now and will continue to change.

[QUOTE="jonnyt61"]

This is SYSTEM Wars. Not CONSOLE wars. Why do people seem to forget it?

If a game is available on more than one platform, it is a multi-platform. Simple as that.

If you really want those terms to be changed, perhaps you should request it to be chnaged from SYSTEM wars to Console Wars =]

L1qu1dSword

This is why system wars rules are illogical. You are trying to tell me that having someone move from the American NAVY to the American ARMY is the same thing as the same soldier going to China's army.

At the end of the day an MS exclusive is still a game that can't be played on Nintendo or SONY consoles.

Right, so you want it to be COMPANY Wars now? I prefer System Wars, personally.

Maybe in North America PC game shelves are thinning but at where i live the PC gets the most new games a month and has the biggest selection. Pretty sure its like that in Europe aswell.

Also the PSX didn't reduce the PC gaming market, those were some of the best days to game on the PC. Quake, Halflife, System Shock 2, Thief, Starcraft, Grim Fandango(some of the best Adventure games) all came out around that gen.

Microsoft doesn't own PC gaming either, and it is not logical to say the Xbox was made to prevent the Playstation eating up the PC gaming market, wouldn't releasing the Xbox cannibalise the market they are trying to save?

Microsoft want in on Entertainment and Digital Content Distribution as part of some longwinded Convergence strategy, the Xbox is a foot in the door for future plans and its the same for Sony and the playstation.

So no, I don't argee that a 360 game going to the PC remains exclusive however it may aswell if you don't own a good PC.

A few things wrong with this argument, which is why it's never taken root in System Wars.

The entire point of specifying whether something is exclusive is to show that your console of preference has something that the other one does not have.L1qu1dSword

Yes, the word 'exclusive' implies comparison, that point is fine.

This implies that you are comparing systems that are in direct competition with one another. L1qu1dSword

This is where your argument falls down. 'Exclusive' in no way implies your comparing systems that are in direct competition. You just said this to further your line of reasoning without any sort of justification for why this is so.

Furthermore, who is to define 'direct competition'? Going down that road is a logical mess.

But what's weakest of all about this argument, if I concede exclusive only applies to systems 'in direct competition', is that the PC should not be brought into the argument since it is not in direct competition with the 360 and PS3. Let later you claim (in error) that the PS1 was killing the PC. That sure as hell sounds like 'direct competition' to me.

Xbox360 and PS3 are VERY similar and therefore compete directly for their market share in ways that PC gaming does not.L1qu1dSword

I've already explained why this logic is flawed. You cannot claim the Xbox came about because of the direct competition between the PS1 and PC, then claim the PC is not in direct competition with consoles. Doesn't work that way.

Basically, what you've done is ignored the meaning of exclusive. Exclusive means something that cannot be got elsewhere. It does not mean something that the opponent you personally deem relevant doesn't have, it means something that cannot be got elsewhere.

The whole point of measuring exclusives for a system is to measure how valuable that system's game library is on its own merits. By pretending several other systems don't exist, you completely run away from the meaning of the world. It's fine to say the 360 has games the PS3 doesn't, but those games ARE NOT EXCLUSIVES.

The worst part of all, is that you pick a system, the PC, which has hundreds of millions of users worldwide (gamers, not non-gamers). What you're essentially saying is that the game is more exclusive to a system if it's on a 200 million+ userbase system, but not a sub 20 million userbase system. The logic behind calling that more exclusive boggles my mind.

A little history to flesh this out:

During the days of PS1 MS realized that PC gaming was dying at the hands of SONY and MS was not happy about this because PC gaming was largely their domain. Declining PC gaming means declining profits and diminishing returns from DirectX. MS hatched a plan to combat this and developed the "DirectXbox" later dubbed the XboX.

I don't think it is fair to say that PC gaming is dying. The implication is that it will cease alltogether and that is not likely. However the reality is that since the era of PS1 the market has allowed alternative ways to experience things previously only available to PC gamers. Anyone who has frequented game stores for many years must have noticed the increasingly shrinking PC Game shelves. This is not because PC gaming is on the rise that is for sure.L1qu1dSword

Actually, PC game revenue is on the rise. It's just moving to forms of distribution that weren't immediatly recognised. It's still the mode of gaming that dwarfs any console.

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

L1qu1dSword

"console exclusive", "exclusive", etc...they're just definitions used to categorize games in SW. The fact remains that Gears and Mass Effect provide a competitive advantage against the PS3.

The point I'm trying to make is that that value proposition matters in terms of persuading potential consumers on the fence between a 360 and a PS3. And so long as these "console exclusives" help push the consumer towards one console versus another, they ought to be identified separately from "console multiplat" games.

I agree totally.

Think about the electoral college. James Madison was the first to admit these rules did not make sense but people stuck with it to preserve their power.

In the same way people are sticking to outdated SW terminology simply because they find it gives them some leverage in SW arguments. These same people forget that this supposed SW law has evolved to get where it is now and will continue to change.

Can you not attempt to compare a teen-early 20's message board of bored people trying to own eachother to real life complete political reformation?

You were saying it only matters when choosing a system, so, then, how does the choice of pc vs x360, or pc vs ps3 not count? It's a choice, some people upgrade their pc, some people buy an x360, it's a choice not unlike ps3 or x360, or ps3 or wii, etc, yeah, MS made the O/S, Bill Gates also shares in Macintosh, does that mean Mac vs PC is a useless consideration?

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. DerekLoffin

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Because I don't pay anything to MS when I buy a game on PC. My OS is already paid for long ago, MS isn't getting any more money out of it. This also means they don't get me to buy a 360, losing them money.

Your OS was payed for long ago......just like my 360

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

L1qu1dSword

Yippie, and Wii and 360 don't compete in the same way, neither do Wii and PS3, or PC and Wii, etc, etc. It's a empty consideration as they still don't have the same value as a true exclusive, and trying to make out like they do is just plain fanboyism.

Can't help but notice that most animosity on SW is between PS3 and 360. This is because the systems that are the most similar will compete most fiercly.

I agree that PC/360 exclusives are not the same as "true" exclusives but by virtue of that fact you cannot treat a title going to PC the same as a title going from PS3 to 360. You pretty much just proved my point.

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

fuzzysquash

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Games that are on multiple platforms cannot be considered exclusive to one.

With that said, games on the ps3 end of things, like The Agency, Free Realms, etc, cannot be considered "exclusives" either, as they will also be on the PC.

Andrew_Xavier

"console exclusive", "exclusive", etc...they're just definitions used to categorize games in SW. The fact remains that Gears and Mass Effect provide a competitive advantage against the PS3.

The point I'm trying to make is that that value proposition matters in terms of persuading potential consumers on the fence between a 360 and a PS3. And so long as these "console exclusives" help push the consumer towards one console versus another, they ought to be identified separately from "console multiplat" games.

Okay, then we need to make every multiplat that isn't on the wii a ps3/x360 exclusive too, and any game that is on wii/ps2 a ps2/wii exclusive, and any game that is on the ps3/pc a ps3/pc exclusive, pretty much making every game some form of exclusive.

No, again, you're categorizing w/o consideration for compliments and substitutes in the actual market.

The PS3 and 360 are very similar platforms with similar capabilities that appeal to similar demographics in the same console cycle. A last gen multiplat title is not exactly competing for the same set of consumers as current gen platforms.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. L1qu1dSword

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Because I don't pay anything to MS when I buy a game on PC. My OS is already paid for long ago, MS isn't getting any more money out of it. This also means they don't get me to buy a 360, losing them money.

Your OS was payed for long ago......just like my 360

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

L1qu1dSword

Yippie, and Wii and 360 don't compete in the same way, neither do Wii and PS3, or PC and Wii, etc, etc. It's a empty consideration as they still don't have the same value as a true exclusive, and trying to make out like they do is just plain fanboyism.

Can't help but notice that most animosity on SW is between PS3 and 360. This is because the systems that are the most similar will compete most fiercly.

I agree that PC/360 exclusives are not the same as "true" exclusives but by virtue of that fact you cannot treat a title going to PC the same as a title going from PS3 to 360. You pretty much just proved my point.

Oh please, all you lemmings are the same.

"We can beat the PS3 if we exclude the PC :cry:" ... yea? You think the term "War" works that way? if someone else has a say it will count, "PS3 vs 360" exists ... but so does PC vs 360 , PS3 vs PC.

Fact of the matter is, personal taste aside, on paper PC is dominating the "Quality games" rankings, and the 360 shares alot of that but still falls short.... you cant avoid it... jsut because its convieniant for you.

Your OS was payed for long ago......just like my 360L1qu1dSword

However, 360 sales ALWAYS give a portion to MS, PC games do not unless MS directly publishes them.

Can't help but notice that most animosity on SW is between PS3 and 360. This is because the systems that are the most similar will compete most fiercly.

I agree that PC/360 exclusives are not the same as "true" exclusives but by virtue of that fact you cannot treat a title going to PC the same as a title going from PS3 to 360. You pretty much just proved my point.

L1qu1dSword

No, you are mixing and matching terms. Exclusive means exclusive, not 'unavailable on opponent console X'. These can help, but when you call them exclusive, you are simply wrong. They don't have the same marketing value to push your console as a true exclusive. You can call them what they are, but don't them exclusives!

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

fuzzysquash

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

I'm okay w/ using the term "console exclusive" for greater accuracy, but Mass Effect and Bioshock should certainly be identified, in some way, as assets for the 360 platform vis-a-vis the PS3.

The problem is that some folks don't count them as exclusive at all, in any shape or fashion. And that is equally misleading.

Or, or, they are simply being accurate.

Again, you cannot have something that is on multiple platforms, and claim that it is exclusive to one. Just like, if you are in a room, and you've got an apple, and another guy in the room has an apple, you cannot claim apple exclusivity.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

fuzzysquash

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

I'm okay w/ using the term "console exclusive" for greater accuracy, but Mass Effect and Bioshock should certainly be identified, in some way, as assets for the 360 platform vis-a-vis the PS3.

The problem is that some folks don't count them as exclusive at all, in any shape or fashion. And that is equally misleading.

The term console exclusive is also rife with problems.

For one, it pretty much ignores the Wii.

And besides, adding adjective likes that to the word exclusive is pointless tautology. The point of an exclusive is supposed to be its exclusivity. It's fine to note if a system has a game that another doesn't in a comparison, but that doesn't make it an exclusive.

I'm okay w/ using the term "console exclusive" for greater accuracy, but Mass Effect and Bioshock should certainly be identified, in some way, as assets for the 360 platform vis-a-vis the PS3.

The problem is that some folks don't count them as exclusive at all, in any shape or fashion. And that is equally misleading.

fuzzysquash

There is no reason to recognize 'console exclusive' any more than there is to recognize PS3/Wii exclusive... it delutes the term exclusive. It is not really more accurate, but exclusive implies all platform, not just some select number of them.

Whats this obsession with PS3 vs 360? Is it just some kind of joke for lemmings seeing as the 1 year head start and leeching off the PC Library has quite clearly given it a huge advantage.

Meu2k7

I'm still trying to get my head around the paradox that the Playstation console line can supposedly be responsible for destroying the PC's market share, but then not be considered 'in direct competition'.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Whats this obsession with PS3 vs 360? Is it just some kind of joke for lemmings seeing as the 1 year head start and leeching off the PC Library has quite clearly given it a huge advantage.

Danm_999

I'm still trying to get my head around the paradox that the Playstation console line can supposedly be responsible for destroying the PC's market share, but then not be considered 'in direct competition'.

Indeed that is strange :lol: , the double standards here are amazing.

I picture this whole 360 vs PS3 thing as the following:

PC/Wii are the 2 monopoly giants , laughing down at the council estate 360 whos been payed to kick around the the gutter bum PS3 around all day.

But heres the twist, the Gutter Bum wins eventually :P ........ and thus goes the cycle of the Xbox-PC Wannabe ... remember by non enthusaists as "The best of western" .... but in reality never even touched the PC.

Tricky thing it is IMO i don't consider them Exclusive on the Xbox360. If so, can we say that PS2 games are exclusive on the PS3, the games are on Ps2 but you can still play them on the PS3 having the benefits of playing PS2 and PS3 games. People don't consider MPs to be a >system seller< exclusive games are usually what you get a selective console for its exclusives and other programs, services that the console provides.

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. Pessu

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

what this guy said is correct. whether ANYBODY likes it or not the consoles compete with the PC included.

WoW lol I always just use this as console wars if someone asks me to tell them some 360 exclusives I will always say gears is one.Hulkness

And you will forever be wrong :P too bad

WoW lol I always just use this as console wars if someone asks me to tell them some 360 exclusives I will always say gears is one.Hulkness

Same i wont say Console exclusives but if someones says whats a good Xbox360 game ill suggest them Gears and other games like that.

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

Danm_999

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

Gears of War is a Microsoft Exclusive.

Tell me what is either false or grammatically wrong with that statement....

=====================

Can you not attempt to compare a teen-early 20's message board of bored people trying to own eachother to real life complete political reformation?

You were saying it only matters when choosing a system, so, then, how does the choice of pc vs x360, or pc vs ps3 not count? It's a choice, some people upgrade their pc, some people buy an x360, it's a choice not unlike ps3 or x360, or ps3 or wii, etc, yeah, MS made the O/S, Bill Gates also shares in Macintosh, does that mean Mac vs PC is a useless consideration?

======================

People caught in a PC vs. Console purchase dilemma happens with such less frequency compared to Console vs. Console that it's nearly not worth mentioning. The fact remains that the majority of people looking to buy a console (read: this includes casuals) are going to be looking at Gears, Bioshock, and ME as reasons to buy the 360 over the PS3/Wii. And ultimately, those games *are* completely valid reasons to choose the 360.

You can deny the term "console exclusive" in the context of "system wars" merely because of arbitrary rules placed to give structure to the debate here - but in reality, console exclusivity is a hugely relevant force that goes into the vast majority of console purchase decisions.

In short.. For the majority of people buying consoles, Bioshock, ME, and Gears are exclusive to 360. In system wars, people immediately claim "multi-plat" and group games like Gears into the same league as Madden or something. Stupid, Inane, Unreasonable.. That's system wars for you.

[QUOTE="Pessu"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]No. Like it or not, the consoles DO compete with PCs. I know they certainly do for me. mgs_freak91

If Windows and Xbox are owned by MS how exactly is this competion?

Besides I never said that anyways. I said they do not compete in the same manner as PS3 and 360 do.

what this guy said is correct. whether ANYBODY likes it or not the consoles compete with the PC included.

Im not saying that they do not compete. Once again Im saying they do not compete in the same way.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

L1qu1dSword

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

Gears of War is a Microsoft Exclusive.

Tell me what is either false or grammatically wrong with that statement....

Its on Mac ...

Now how are you going to counter that?

lol, they are not. if they can be played on more than one system they are not exclusive.

also take a look at most countries in europe where ps3 has been doing better than 360 simple because pc gamign is strong there and many people can play these so called 360 exclusives on the pc there reducing a lot of 360 advantage

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

Andrew_Xavier

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

Gears of War is a Microsoft Exclusive.

Tell me what is either false or grammatically wrong with that statement....

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=15395

In a "Game Head" video posted on Gametrailers.com, Epic Games' VP Mark Rein announced that a Mac version of Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 are heading to the platform. Rein enthusiastically announces in the video, "And don't forget, we're also doing Macintosh. Yes, Gears is coming to the Mac and so is UT".

Using the Unreal 3 engine, Gears of War is a third-person tactical action/horror game that has been a runaway best-seller on the XBOX 360 selling over 3.5 million copies. The Windows version of Gears of War was announced last week and Epic promises all-new content, including three new multiplayer maps, a new multiplayer game type, game editor, and five new campaign chapters for the Windows version.

Be sure to check out the video of Mark Rein on Gametrailers.com. The surprise announcement appears roughly mid-way through the video.

I was not aware it was on MAC, but maybe you could give us an idea how powerful your point is by telling us how many copies sold on the MAC.

=====================

Can you not attempt to compare a teen-early 20's message board of bored people trying to own eachother to real life complete political reformation?

You were saying it only matters when choosing a system, so, then, how does the choice of pc vs x360, or pc vs ps3 not count? It's a choice, some people upgrade their pc, some people buy an x360, it's a choice not unlike ps3 or x360, or ps3 or wii, etc, yeah, MS made the O/S, Bill Gates also shares in Macintosh, does that mean Mac vs PC is a useless consideration?

======================

People caught in a PC vs. Console purchase dilemma happens with such less frequency compared to Console vs. Console that it's nearly not worth mentioning. The fact remains that the majority of people looking to buy a console (read: this includes casuals) are going to be looking at Gears, Bioshock, and ME as reasons to buy the 360 over the PS3/Wii. And ultimately, those games *are* completely valid reasons to choose the 360.

You can deny the term "console exclusive" in the context of "system wars" merely because of arbitrary rules placed to give structure to the debate here - but in reality, console exclusivity is a hugely relevant force that goes into the vast majority of console purchase decisions.

In short.. For the majority of people buying consoles, Bioshock, ME, and Gears are exclusive to 360. In system wars, people immediately claim "multi-plat" and group games like Gears into the same league as Madden or something. Stupid, Inane, Unreasonable.. That's system wars for you.

_Impmacaque_

Yeah, except, it wouldn't count if it was "Console" wars, since it isn't, since gamespot.com does reviews/features on pc games, since pc gamers have a special nickname for their fans, since exclusive means exclusive not "I feel I'll disclude this version", games that are on pc/x360 or pc/ps3 are not exclusive.

I could do what you are doing, "Oh, well, since the x360 and pc are similar, I'm not including them in my comparisons, so, it's all ps3 vs wii, wow, look how many exclusives the ps3 has now!".

=====================

Can you not attempt to compare a teen-early 20's message board of bored people trying to own eachother to real life complete political reformation?

You were saying it only matters when choosing a system, so, then, how does the choice of pc vs x360, or pc vs ps3 not count? It's a choice, some people upgrade their pc, some people buy an x360, it's a choice not unlike ps3 or x360, or ps3 or wii, etc, yeah, MS made the O/S, Bill Gates also shares in Macintosh, does that mean Mac vs PC is a useless consideration?

======================

People caught in a PC vs. Console purchase dilemma happens with such less frequency compared to Console vs. Console that it's nearly not worth mentioning. The fact remains that the majority of people looking to buy a console (read: this includes casuals) are going to be looking at Gears, Bioshock, and ME as reasons to buy the 360 over the PS3/Wii. And ultimately, those games *are* completely valid reasons to choose the 360.

You can deny the term "console exclusive" in the context of "system wars" merely because of arbitrary rules placed to give structure to the debate here - but in reality, console exclusivity is a hugely relevant force that goes into the vast majority of console purchase decisions.

In short.. For the majority of people buying consoles, Bioshock, ME, and Gears are exclusive to 360. In system wars, people immediately claim "multi-plat" and group games like Gears into the same league as Madden or something. Stupid, Inane, Unreasonable.. That's system wars for you.

_Impmacaque_

This very strongly crystalized the point I was trying to make. People are getting mired down in the technicalities of SW rules and forgetting the reasons the rules were created in the first place.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

I agree.

Regardless of whether SW defines Gears as "exclusive" or not, the fact still stands that Gears 360 still makes up a part of the competitive advantage of that console vis-a-vis the PS3. And in the end, it's business that matters, not SW's definitions.

L1qu1dSword

They constitute an advantage, sure, but to call that advantage 'an exclusive game' is a complete misuse of the term.

Gears of War is a Microsoft Exclusive.

Tell me what is either false or grammatically wrong with that statement....

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=15395

In a "Game Head" video posted on Gametrailers.com, Epic Games' VP Mark Rein announced that a Mac version of Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 are heading to the platform. Rein enthusiastically announces in the video, "And don't forget, we're also doing Macintosh. Yes, Gears is coming to the Mac and so is UT".

Using the Unreal 3 engine, Gears of War is a third-person tactical action/horror game that has been a runaway best-seller on the XBOX 360 selling over 3.5 million copies. The Windows version of Gears of War was announced last week and Epic promises all-new content, including three new multiplayer maps, a new multiplayer game type, game editor, and five new campaign chapters for the Windows version.

Be sure to check out the video of Mark Rein on Gametrailers.com. The surprise announcement appears roughly mid-way through the video.

I was not aware it was on MAC, but maybe you could give us an idea how powerful your point is by telling us how many copies sold on the MAC.

Ohhh, awesome, so, sales now equal exclusive status? So, like, DMC4 sold more on the ps3, so, is it a ps3 exclusive now? Exclusive denotes something being available on ONE platform and only ONE platform, not 3 like gears.

It certainly helps when you are taking it out of context like that.L1qu1dSword

How did I take it out of context? I directly quoted your whole paragraph!

You said one thing, I agreed. You then said another thing, I said that was a baseless assumption.

Exclusive as a dictionary definition is as you say, however, in System Wars I've found that the entire point of even discussing exclusivity is generally for one to say "my side has something yours does not, therefore, my system is better." I feel this implies direct competition because you notice that if a system is different enough it does not even get a mention. Things like handhelds, Actual Arcade Games, and Cellphone games come to mind.L1qu1dSword

Yes, people do say that, but there are more than 2 sides. Again, you've said 'you feel' that this is how things are, yet most of System Wars has repeatedly voted against the concept of Console exclusives, and for the concept of including the PC, all consoles and all handhelds.

Neither the dictionary nor these forums are on your side.

Hate to say it but it sounds like here"You just said this to further your line of reasoning without any sort of justification for why this is so."L1qu1dSword

Nope. You used the ambiguous term, I asked who was going to define it. Logically followed on from what you said.

Unless you think parroting my response in a situation where it doesn't make sense is some kind of legitimate argument.

I disagree. My understanding of direct competition would be if in the same scenario SONY was making PC games exclusive to their own brand of OS. Get it now? Also I am not claiming in error that PS1 was killing PC. That is history.L1qu1dSword

That's not history, since the PC never died, enjoyed revenue rises in the period and produced more critically acclaimed games than the PS1. Maybe if you had argued the PS2 I could agree with you, but you didn't.

And you need to get it out of your head Microsoft owns the PC. They don't, they make OS for it. OS which now are not mandatory to play PC games.

Direct Competition is when the two brands are nearly identical save their brand name. L1qu1dSword

Lol. You're really getting desperate now. No, that is not what direct competition means. In economics, direct competition is where two products perform the same function. If you want to make up your own definition, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to abide by it.

Guess what, the PC performs the same function as the 360 and PS3. They are in direct, freaking, competition.

I'm not responding to the rest of your post because basically, you didn't say much worth responding to.

Yeah, except, it wouldn't count if it was "Console" wars, since it isn't, since gamespot.com does reviews/features on pc games, since pc gamers have a special nickname for their fans, since exclusive means exclusive not "I feel I'll disclude this version", games that are on pc/x360 or pc/ps3 are not exclusive.

I could do what you are doing, "Oh, well, since the x360 and pc are similar, I'm not including them in my comparisons, so, it's all ps3 vs wii, wow, look how many exclusives the ps3 has now!".

You're debating the semantics of a term here. Nobody cares about that.

Nor are we discluding the PC. Think about it. The point people are trying to make is that *even though the game appears on PC, it's still a huge advantage for M$ assuming it never goes multiplat with other consoles.* Look at the PC game sales for those games compared to the consoles. The console versions clearly count for the majority of purchases.

Do you or don't you deny that ME, Bioshock, and Gears are reasons somebody would choose a 360 over a PS3/Wii?

Do you or don't you deny the significance of "console exclusivity" in reality, outside of the nonsense boundries of System Wars?