Tekken
Virtua fighter
Devil May Cry
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
Front Mission
Metal Gear
Assassin's Creed
Grand Theft Auto
Beautiful Katamari
Fatal Inertia
And so on.
Microsoft did well this gen :)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
resident evil and assassin's creed are not exclusives. RE4 came out on gamecube and later came out on PS2 and Xbox.
360 has lost
Bioshock
Star Ocean 4
GTA IV DLC
Lost Planet
Tales of Vesperia
Ninja Gaiden 2
Oblivion
Plays the same I'd say.
Not that i care about sony, but if you are going to make a thread, at least post correct information.Tekken
Virtua fighter
Devil May Cry - DMC3 was on the PC
Final Fantasy - Was never exclusive to sony
Resident Evil - same as above
Front Mission
Metal Gear- MGS2 was on the xbox
Assassin's Creed - was never exclusive
Grand Theft Auto - Both on PC and xbox
Beautiful Katamari
Fatal Inertia
And so on.
Microsoft did well this gen :)
bphan
but they gained a lot better in their first party department your point? besides a few of those in that list have actually been multiplats prior.
Tekken
Virtua fighter (VF4 was on the cast was it not)
Devil May Cry (3 was on PC)
Final Fantasy (never ever been PS exclusive :S cept maybe 10 and 12)
Resident Evil (never been exclusive)
Front Mission
Metal Gear (never been exclusive)
Assassin's Creed
Grand Theft Auto (was on PC before it was Ps )
Beautiful Katamari
Fatal Inertia
And so on.
Microsoft did well this gen :)
bphan
just quoted for further reinforcement on why OP is flawed.
Tekken
Assassin's Creed
Beautiful Katamari
Fatal Inertia
And so on.
Microsoft did well this gen :)
bphan
Fixed.
GTA was on PC and original Xbox. Front Mission was originally on SNES. Resident Evil was already lost last gen with the Gamecube ports. Final Fantasy was originally on NES. DMC was on PC. Virtua Fighter was on most Sega systems before. When you said Metal Gear I guess you were referring to Metal Gear Solid either way still wasn't ever exclusive. Metal Gear has roots on MSX and NES and MGS1 was on Gamecube and MGS2 was on Xbox.
Does it matter? which system is bringing in more exclusives at this point. hint hint. It's the HD console that isn't funded by microsoft. jg4xchamp
Microsoft is beating Sony in profits, total units sold, total library, total exclusives. I own Microsoft stock. This is great news for me.
[QUOTE="Warriorboy1990"]
360 has lost
Bioshock
Star Ocean 4
GTA IV DLC
Lost Planet
Tales of Vesperia
Ninja Gaiden 2
Oblivion
Plays the same I'd say.
goblaa
A lot of those were 360/PC multiplats from day one.
True, but they all went to PS3.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Does it matter? which system is bringing in more exclusives at this point. hint hint. It's the HD console that isn't funded by microsoft. bphan
Microsoft is beating Sony in profits, total units sold, total library, total exclusives. I own Microsoft stock. This is great news for me.
Whats the point of this post? Who cares if MS is making more money besides you...? This thread isn't about sales so trolling about it's rather pointless.Funny thing is Microsoft only had one major third party exclusive from last gen which got a current-gen game, Ninja Gaiden, and they quickly lost it even though the PS3 wasn't even doing well at the time Sigma was released.
Funny thing is Microsoft only had one major third party exclusive from last gen which got a current-gen game, Ninja Gaiden, and they quickly lost it even though the PS3 wasn't even doing well at the time Sigma was released.
SakusEnvoy
I don't mind exclusives going to others systems. Spread the wealth I say.
Lol Microsoft did well? I would consider them "doing well" when they come out with exclusives of their own.
On a side note. Whats with all the lems being happy over MGS: Rising? Its not even being developed by Kojima. Big whoop.
[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="Warriorboy1990"]
360 has lost
Bioshock
Star Ocean 4
GTA IV DLC
Lost Planet
Tales of Vesperia
Ninja Gaiden 2
Oblivion
Plays the same I'd say.
Warriorboy1990
A lot of those were 360/PC multiplats from day one.
True, but they all went to PS3. But they weren't exclusive in the first place, so that list is useless.[QUOTE="Warriorboy1990"][QUOTE="goblaa"]True, but they all went to PS3. But they weren't exclusive in the first place, so that list is useless. But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.A lot of those were 360/PC multiplats from day one.
Sandvichman
But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.chrisPpersonFor the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games.
[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.JynxzorFor the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games. But Microsoft can pay developers to keep games on their platforms, them being XBOX 360 and PC. Alright then, I'm just saying that this is exactly what happens; have you noticed all of the games exclusive to X360 and PC, and few games exclusive to PS3 and PC?
[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.JynxzorFor the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games.
MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms. Personal computers are not MIcrosoft platforms. But Windows is. When Windows is sold, Microsoft makes money. When there are games exclusive to the platforms that Microsoft owns, them being the X360 and PC, Microsoft makes sales.[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] But they weren't exclusive in the first place, so that list is useless. Danm_999
For the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games.[QUOTE="Jynxzor"][QUOTE="chrisPperson"]But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.bphan
MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows.[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="chrisPperson"] But they were exclusive to Microsoft platforms.Personal computers are not MIcrosoft platforms. But Windows is. When Windows is sold, Microsoft makes money. When there are games exclusive to the platforms that Microsoft owns, them being the X360 and PC, Microsoft makes sales.chrisPperson
As do several other companies, including Sony.
You're focusing in on one companies profits to make an artificial point; Microsoft does not own or represent PC gaming.
[QUOTE="bphan"][QUOTE="Jynxzor"] For the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games.Danm_999
MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows. That doesn't disprove the fact that all of these games are still running on the Windows platform. You could run virtual machines on a whole bunch of different operating systems, but it's not like the average consumer runs Linux and then installs WINE on that same Linux operating system. The average consumer will purchase a gaming Windows computer, because not only will it be far more reliable than running an emulator for high-tech games, it will also be more fitted to the casual buyer, while Linux is not.[QUOTE="bphan"][QUOTE="Jynxzor"] For the love of god, stop bringing up this "Microsoft platform exclusive" thing up, System war rules state PC is a seperate platform not associated with Microsoft...just because it uses windows doesn't make MS any richer from PC games.Danm_999
MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows.I don't Need a sony vaio to play pc games, but I do need windows. See the difference?
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="bphan"]And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows. That doesn't disprove the fact that all of these games are still running on the Windows platform. You could run virtual machines on a whole bunch of different operating systems, but it's not like the average consumer runs Linux and then installs WINE on that same Linux operating system. The average consumer will purchase a gaming Windows computer, because not only will it be far more reliable than running an emulator for high-tech games, it will also be more fitted to the casual buyer, while Linux is not.MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
chrisPperson
So the argument for exclusivity now is based upon what this ephemeral "average consumer" does, is it? No, we assign exclusivity based upon whether or not the software is exclusive, not whether or not you feel alternate systems are popular enough to warrant it.
Nor does this satisfactorily answer why the PC is a Microsoft system, when, as I've stated, Microsoft does not manufacture PC hardware (apart from KB/M and webcams of course).
You've simply picked one player in the PC market and 'assigned' them the title of centralized owner of the platform. This is utterly illogical, the PC is not anymore of a Microsoft system than it is any of those companies I have named.
And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows.[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="bphan"]
MS makes money from OS sales and development tools like DirectX.
bphan
I don't Need a sony vaio to play pc games, but I do need windows. See the difference?
As I've pointed out, no you don't. Legal emulation of software does not dissapear because you claim it isn't popular enough. And you're still ignoring the point here. Why focus on the Microsoft aspect? Certain games only run adequately on NVIDIA cards, or Intel CPUs. Are they Intel and NVIDIA exclusives? The PC is not a console. It does not have a singular owner.[QUOTE="bphan"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] And Sony makes money from Vaio's. There is no single manufacturer of personal computers, they are not consoles. Microsoft fanboys like to lock onto the fact that they make a popular operating system and try to justify it as proving they own the platform. They don't. It's no more a Microsoft platform than it is an Intel, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, ASUS, Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba (etc, etc) platform. The point is especially irrelevant when you realize Linux and MAC operating systems can run PC software through emulators like WINE, meaning you don't even need Windows.Danm_999
I don't Need a sony vaio to play pc games, but I do need windows. See the difference?
As I've pointed out, no you don't. Legal emulation of software does not dissapear because you claim it isn't popular enough. And you're still ignoring the point here. Why focus on the Microsoft aspect? Certain games only run adequately on NVIDIA cards, or Intel CPUs. Are they Intel and NVIDIA exclusives? The PC is not a console. It does not have a singular owner.Danm_999, I think you are really missing the point. Have you ever tried to run a game like Crysis, or even World of Warcraft on a Linux machine with WINE? First of all, WINE has some really, really serious compatibility issues at the moment.
Second, running a program without it being on its native platform, as in running with a third-party program on another platform, has never been able to fully emulate the native system, this goes for OSX Boot Camp as well. And as I've said before, we are discussing games exclusive to the Windows platform, and if someone is tempted to buy a platform to play a Windows game, do you honestly think that they are going to buy a Mac? "Did you see that new game on Windows? I'm totally getting a Mac now!". No.
And I see your point with the fact that other companies are making money with the sales of PCs, but as you should know, with the creation of consoles, companies like Nvidia and ATI are also making money because their products are also used in the creation of consoles. So I don't see how your argument is relevant here.
Well, they gained as far as their first party is concerned.
This is the generation very few third party games remain exclusive, like MGS4.
[QUOTE="Warriorboy1990"][QUOTE="goblaa"]True, but they all went to PS3. But they weren't exclusive in the first place, so that list is useless. The list has oversights, but it's not useless. Star Ocean 4, GTA IV Episodes from Liberty City, Tales of Vesperia, Ninja Gaiden 2 all hold up. It's missing games like Eternal Sonata, of course, and Dead Rising and Saints Row.A lot of those were 360/PC multiplats from day one.
Sandvichman
Danm_999, I think you are really missing the point. Have you ever tried to run a game like Crysis, or even World of Warcraft on a Linux machine with WINE? First of all, WINE has some really, really serious compatibility issues at the moment.Second, running a program without it being on its native platform, as in running with a third-party program on another platform, has never been able to fully emulate the native system, this goes for OSX Boot Camp as well. And as I've said before, we are discussing games exclusive to the Windows platform, and if someone is tempted to buy a platform to play a Windows game, do you honestly think that they are going to buy a Mac? "Did you see that new game on Windows? I'm totally getting a Mac now!". No.chrisPperson
That's all I'll say on that matter, as I feel we're going around in circles.
And I see your point with the fact that other companies are making money with the sales of PCs, but as you should know, with the creation of consoles, companies like Nvidia and ATI are also making money because their products are also used in the creation of consoles. So I don't see how your argument is relevant here.
chrisPperson
Then let me state it again.
There is no central authority to PC manufacturing like there is a console. No single corporation oversees its creation, like Sony does the Playstation and Microsoft does the Xbox. In these instances, console manufacturers will commission and pay hardware developers to create certain parts of the console, but still retain ownership of the creation.
To then claim the PC is a Microsoft system because they make the operating system is a non-sequitur. Microsoft works ALONGSIDE other companies, and in COMPETITION with some companies, in order to make PCs. The characteristic of ownership does not transfer to this type of enterprise.
Microsoft's profit from personal computers is incidental, as it is a situation Sony and Apple also benefit from (Microsoft's competitors in gaming).
The only reason operating system is selected by Microsoft fans as a proof of ownership, is because, more often than not, it's the only component Microsoft makes for personal computers.
This is the flimsy pretext for somehow considering exclusive games more 'exclusive' to the 360 despite them being on another platform. That's all I'm really willing to say on this.
Heh, so when people are playing PC games through Gaikai or Onlive on their iPads will those games still be 'Microsoft-exclusive'?
Tekken
Virtua fighter
Devil May Cry
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil
Front Mission
Metal Gear
Assassin's Creed
Grand Theft Auto
Beautiful Katamari
Fatal Inertia
And so on.
Microsoft did well this gen :)
agreed but you have brought the wrong examples DMC3 was on the PC. RE was mostly a nintindo franchise most of the last generation. MGS2 was on the xbox. assassin creed is a new IP !!!!!!!!!! GTA was always timed exclusive !!!!!! can you plzzz put more effort in ur threads, coz you seem like a fanboy now.[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]And I see your point with the fact that other companies are making money with the sales of PCs, but as you should know, with the creation of consoles, companies like Nvidia and ATI are also making money because their products are also used in the creation of consoles. So I don't see how your argument is relevant here.
Danm_999
Then let me state it again.
There is no central authority to PC manufacturing like there is a console. No single corporation oversees its creation, like Sony does the Playstation and Microsoft does the Xbox. In these instances, console manufacturers will commission and pay hardware developers to create certain parts of the console, but still retain ownership of the creation.
To then claim the PC is a Microsoft system because they make the operating system is a non-sequitur. Microsoft works ALONGSIDE other companies, and in COMPETITION with some companies, in order to make PCs. The characteristic of ownership does not transfer to this type of enterprise.
Microsoft's profit from personal computers is incidental, as it is a situation Sony and Apple also benefit from (Microsoft's competitors in gaming).
The only reason operating system is selected by Microsoft fans as a proof of ownership, is because, more often than not, it's the only component Microsoft makes for personal computers.
This is the flimsy pretext for somehow considering exclusive games more 'exclusive' to the 360 despite them being on another platform. That's all I'm really willing to say on this.
Again, I see your point. Yes, Sony does manufacture the PlayStation and Microsoft manufactures the XBOX. However, I think you are straying off the main point of the entire argument here, which is why games are exclusive to the PC and XBOX. When a good PC game comes out that gives motive for consumers to buy a computer with Windows as an operating system, Microsoft makes money; end of story. Whether other companies make money for making the PC and the components is a different point, but what really matters here is that Microsoft is making money off of these sales due to these games coming out.
Whether other companies make money for making the PC and the components is a different point, but what really matters here is that Microsoft is making money off of these sales due to these games coming out.And to distill it down as simply as possible; that fact has zero to do with whether or not a game is exclusive to the 360.chrisPperson
A game is exclusive if it can only be found on one system.
And to distill it down as simply as possible; that fact has zero to do with whether or not a game is exclusive to the 360.[QUOTE="chrisPperson"] Whether other companies make money for making the PC and the components is a different point, but what really matters here is that Microsoft is making money off of these sales due to these games coming out.
Danm_999
A game is exclusive if it can only be found on one system.
When you say that, I realize that I may have strayed off-topic too. I guess that's what it all boils down to then.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment