Seems pretty accurate to me. See my post above that I think the list only incorporate's titles in a system's ecosystem...hence no Alan Wake/Witcher 2. Although Alan Wake took forever to get onto PC.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
360 vs PS3 retail exclusives (+ restrictions) released US or EU 2010-2013
- Thread starter FINALBOSS
- Start date
Seems pretty accurate to me. See my post above that I think the list only incorporate's titles in a system's ecosystem...hence no Alan Wake/Witcher 2. Although Alan Wake took forever to get onto PC.
Looks that way huehuehue.
witcher 2 is on pc and i think mac as well
I'd argue that Anniversary is a bit more than just a hd remake.
Personally I would include XBLA and PSN titles for a better perspective.
Isn't PC exclusive (versus playable on OSX) in Microsoft's ecosystem? =p Either way we're talking a handful of games added to the 360's list, versus how many missing PS3 titles? At least four.
Good point, but I meant for both paying subscriptions: Gold and PS+. Still fair I think.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Well let the margin be bigger so we can see, why are yall befuddledIf you do that the margin will be even bigger.
And I think this list isn't including games that can be found on the PC as well--i.e. Alan Wake.
Just things in the systems ecosystem.
Same here man, same here
One of the saddest things of this year--esp that whole fiasco. Still though, game was amazing.
So? We were moving the needle to "games that aren't playable on the other console".
Cause you know how sad/depressed Xbox fans are these days.
NO!
Mad Bowser
Banned
As a first party exclusives, Sony always boss around.
Dark Octave
Banned
Whats the red, yellow and green borders on the games mean?
Yeah, it's pretty great value these days.
I may have misinterpreted what you were getting at as well, my bad.
Metacritic average.
Isn't that really what it comes down to though? It's more of a standard that every HD release should strive to meet.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
No Alan Wake (Released on 360 in 2010 and 2 years later on PC) on the Xbox side, but PS All Stars ( PS3/Vita simultaneous release) on PS3 side. Funny how the word "exclusive" can change its definition to fit with whatever's convenient.
A better list (if people insist on making these types of lists) would be games published by MS, Sony, or Nintendo. That way you can include games released on PC, or handheld.
A better list (if people insist on making these types of lists) would be games published by MS, Sony, or Nintendo. That way you can include games released on PC, or handheld.
I guess Metacritic rating.
Can't fault MS for doing what it did with Xbox 360. They got the hardcore to jump in early with lots of exclusives (like me), then slowed down exclusives to just Halo, Gears, Forza while they went after the Kinect pot of gold. Half way through this gen I switched to PS3 when Sony was firing exclusive after exclusive, no regrets. MS seems to be doing the same thing with Xbox One, lets see if they can maintain a strong stable of exclusive software for the entirety of that console's life. With Sony, there is no worry, you know they will stay committed.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Show why MSFT has been the worst for the last few years. Sony stepped it's game up and it's going to continue into next gen.
Yep, and that's where Microsoft loses me. Even if they absolutely kill it with exclusives during the first few years, I will always have doubts and believe that the flow will slow considerably and give way to casual titles after Microsoft feels exclusives aren't important any longer. Then I'll be better off picking up an XBOX when it's dirt cheap.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Hmm? I dont get it but whatever
Darkangel
Member
I think it's pretty stupid to not include Windows/Xbox games as console exclusive. There are a lot of games like Splinter Cell: Conviction, The Witcher 2, and Alan Wake that are not playable on PS3 (or any other console).
If Vita/PS3 games count as console exclusive then Windows/Xbox games should too.
That being said, Sony clearly has the upper hand when it comes to 1st party development.
If Vita/PS3 games count as console exclusive then Windows/Xbox games should too.
That being said, Sony clearly has the upper hand when it comes to 1st party development.
Guessing it counts PC as a comparable platform but not handhelds, which is fair enough. Must say, did not expect the gulf to be that big. Microsoft really is somewhat terrible at providing long life and continued value proposition for its consoles.
Wonder if it will be the same with the XO. Spend all that budget in the first few years and then sharply bleed off.
Wonder if it will be the same with the XO. Spend all that budget in the first few years and then sharply bleed off.
Glorious Ownage
Member
Same here man, same here
One of the saddest things of this year--esp that whole fiasco. Still though, game was amazing.
Ni no Kuni was amazing. My personal game of the generation. Had no idea I'd enjoy it that much or put that many hours into it
well taking a quick look in the releases by year in here of all places> http://www.gamerankings.com/
There is really not any winning side...
Sony are hell of a lot more confident in their first party studios now compared to a decade ago.
That's one reason why (apparently) according to one gaffer they opted out of moneyhatting FFXV and/or MGSV.
JordanLMiller
Member
Oh that's right the Move exists! I almost forgot, just like Sony.
kingtuck12
Banned
If you include titles that are also released on vita, then you have to include titles released PC since it's part of MS.
Alright lets make proper parameters for this, but is it Windows/Xbox/MAC or just Windows/Xbox because otherwise Witcher is out. See, it get really complicated very fast.
Syphon Filter
Member
that's a good thing.
I dont blame them , especially on FFXV.
why moneyhat when you already know its gonna sale more on your console.
I'm glad they buried that trash right next to their 3D gaming push. Should have never launched it.
maplelord93
Banned
Wasn't Fable 3 released in 2010?
Duxxy3
Member
I stepped into this gen very late.. January 2011..
If I had choosen 360 as people around me suggested I would be now devastated by this
This is really the reason I can't see myself considering the One.. to see it being forgotten again by MS like this.
That picture is why my niece and nephew are using my 360 as a netflix box.
Kind of a flawed comparison then, no? If this list isn't counting games available on PC it shouldn't count games available on Vita either.
The fine print at the bottom even says "The game has not at any point been released on any other platform."
I'd like to see a list without all these arbitrary restrictions. Obviously it would still be lopsided in Sony's favor as they have way more first party studios, but the comparison in the OP is flawed imo.
I won't be absolutely certain about this. Sony already made PS+ mandatory for multiplayer because they saw an opportunity to announce this in the midst of Xbox One fiasco. It's always what corporations think they could capitalize without facing any notable backlash.
Really? What about Yakuza 5, unlike Xbox's weird crap that is a proper game right there.
Sony was smart enough to realize that moneyhatting is a sucker's game at the end of the day, you will burn through so much cash for at best temp exclusives (given the cost of development nowadays). Much better off buying and building great development studios that will bring you a lot of return over the course of a gen. Naughty Dog was by far they're best purchase.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Succinct Verbosity
Member
As an early adopter of the 360, I'm certainly glad I picked up my PS3 three years ago. Microsoft have been highly reliant of Fable, Gears of War and Halo to carry their hardcore audience for the last few years.
The list is extremely biased. It's missing all of the exclusive shmups on the 360. The argument I've heard for that is that they're also in arcades, but going by that logic a lot of the PS3 exclusive games shouldn't be there because they're also on the Vita. There's also a no Japan-only rule which is complete BS.
PAULINK
I microwave steaks.
I stepped into this gen very late.. January 2011..
If I had choosen 360 as people around me suggested I would be now devastated by this
This is really the reason I can't see myself considering the One.. to see it being forgotten again by MS like this.
Devastated? Are you limited to recently released games as well as multiplatform games?
PC isn't a console. And if we go with console exclusives that are also found on the PC then DCUO etc will be added too. Makes more sense to just sticking to console titles.
OT: Didn't realize it was this bad :S Love me some Dance Central tho
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think it's a representative list. It may be "accurate" in that it follows its own rules strictly, but the way those rules are chosen undermines many of the possible points it could make.
Ports to other consoles: It retroactively removes exclusives because of late ports (Alan Wake, Fable III)--which if you're trying to say "do you buy the system today if you've never played anything you needed the system for" is fine, but if you're trying to write a historical narrative is useless. It's like saying Final Fantasy VI wasn't a SNES exclusive because it later got ported to PS1--yes, true, you don't need to buy a SNES today for FFVI, but if you're trying to tell a story about the SNES versus Genesis it's not a valuable restriction. So that's something that would considered if the discussion is meant to be historical.
Vita: Games ported to PC (outside the console ecosystem) are excluded. Fair enough. Games ported to Vita (outside the console ecosystem) are not. I think that's a reasonable set of assumptions, but it's also one that has a specific impact on the Sony side for the "bigger". For example if the question is "If I own a gaming PC, what can I get exclusive on 360?" then excluding multiplats makes sense. If the question is "I own a 360 and a Vita, what can I get exclusive on PS3?" then some other stuff would be excluded.
US/EU: It includes games that are released in the US/EU during that period but whose original release was before that period (for example, White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza 3). Again, consistent with the rules. Saint Seiya is listed but did not release in the US.
Retail only: Never mind XBLA/PSN thing--DeathSmiles II, Akai Katana, and other retail games are excluded by this rule-- or perhaps because they're viewed as "ports" (of arcade games). But yes, XBLA/PSN are worth considering too for both sides.
MIA: The various Lips games released after 2010 are not listed (fine, because they're annual content packs?)
That's not to say that the conclusion you're meant to draw--that Sony has more exclusive games and Microsoft shifted primarily to Kinect and the only exclusive 3rd party titles are Japanese and Sony has all those--is wrong, because I don't think it is wrong. Sony clearly has the larger first party and more aggressively released games during that period and Microsoft clearly shifted interest to Kinect and if they're your bag, Sony's Japanese exclusive support from smaller publishers can be a BIG edge. So kudos to the author for demonstrating that. But I also think the rules affect the outcome of the list. All of the rules individually are justified, I'm not saying there's a problem with any one rule, but the composition of the rules impacts the list and it's clear why the specific rules were chosen is to support the position the author had.
zero shift
Banned
This thread just reminds me why PC + Nintendo combo is the best. The list is bare on both sides.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll