We spend a lot of time banging on about the console conflict and getting excited about the latest killer app for either side.
But if you cast your gaze elsewhere you'll notice that most of the titles that we're all getting in a tizzy about at the moment are ones that share the love across all consoles.
Batman: Arkham City has just hit shelves, has been hailed as one of the best games in the world ever and comes to both PS3 and 360.
Then there's the likes of Saints Row: The Third, which might not be considered in quite the same company as the above but a game that looks like it could bring something fantastically entertaining to the multi-platform table.
And the games that do crop up on our calendar as console exclusives aren't exactly exclusive in the most competitive sense. Uncharted 3, Zelda Skyward Sword and the Halo: Combat Evolved remake are all being made in the houses of their respective platform holders. It's hardly the same as Sony nabbing GTA exclusivity, is it?
With multi-platform games making up the lion's share of gaming quality these days, then, are console exclusives really as relevant as they once were?
Comments
35 comments so far...
bennyt on 23 Oct '11 said:
Personally no.
Its only because everyone's deciding to release their games during the run up to Xmas, that exclusives are being overshadowed.
For Xbox, there's Halo CEA and not too mention Forza 4 and Gears which have been and gone.
Kinect-Raving Rabbids, KSS2 and a few others.
PS3-Uncharted 3 .
Ninty-Skyward Sword for the wii and MK7 and SM3DL for the 3DS.
There are plenty of exclusives, perhaps more so than last year, just that there are other games coming out that offer something different aswell and keeps things fresh.
I certainly hope that exclusives are around for a while longer but i wouldn't mind if there was a future console where all games could be played on...a breed of PlayStation, Xbox something and Ninty...end all this fanboyism war thingy bob and experience great games together-ME, Uncharted, Zelda, Mario, Halo, Fable if Peter can deliver an actual decent fable for a change like 1 and 2 etc
damoxuk on 23 Oct '11 said:
Who Cares? Real gamers play on all platforms and get to enjoy all games. Exclusives are just a way to sell consoles to people who can't really afford more than one games machine.
But in the run u to this years christmas only 1 exclusive looks great Uncharted 3, but Batman, BF3, MW3, Skyrim are dominant.
Skyrim easily the game i'm most interested in. Games games and more games..
Oh s**t forgot about Mario Kart and Mario for 3DS gah time to become unemployed.
drake23 on 23 Oct '11 said:
for the xbox 360 yes for the ps3 no.simples and i own both.
apocacrux on 23 Oct '11 said:
@bennyt I think you partially missed the point of the article.
It is referring to console exclusives specifically from 3rd party companies. Though, yes there were a couple this year, but not nearly as many as there have been in the past.
resh on 23 Oct '11 said:
Did gears 3 just come out? I think it did
CJG on 23 Oct '11 said:
As well as Forza 4, some Kinect games, and Halo CE next month.
Fr33Kye on 23 Oct '11 said:
Nah, see sony own like 16 studios. So the number of multiplatform games will increase because we will be making more and more games , but i think sony will just buy more studios, and/or we will get to a point where consoles have there respective strengths and weaknesses so exclusives are the best or only option.
Flamestrike on 23 Oct '11 said:
As long as there is more than one system exclusives-3rd and 1st party-will always be relevant.
Another world beater from CVG.
gmcb007 on 23 Oct '11 said:
A couple on each side is grand but when they start making exclusive DLC in multiplatform games its a problem. It's alarming how much this is beginning to grow in recent months, especially from Sony. Each platform needs their exclusives for the sake of sales.
roll3rtoast3r on 23 Oct '11 said:
its quite funny how you're saying that and your name is drake
Multiplayerking on 23 Oct '11 said:
Not really. I could afford both consoles but feel no real need to have both. Sure it would be cool to have an Xbox too, but I don't particularly want one.
That doesn't make me not a "real gamer".
mincedbeef on 23 Oct '11 said:
@Multiplayerking...
No, it doesn't make you not a 'real gamer' but it makes you someone who is prepared to ignore a whole library of games, some exclusive and some of the best multiplat versions available. Your call, but all console fanboys seem to go on about are the exclusives. Like someone else said, you need all systems to play the best games. End of story, that's not even debateable.
As for the 360 have less and less exclusives, surely you'd expect that wouldn't you as its going to reach its end of shelf life before the PS3, but at the same time even if there wasn't a single exclusive between now and the day the 360 got superceded by the next console, it's not a problem especially as 9/10 multiplats turn out better on that system.
If the Sony SDF want to wax-lyrical about exclusives then ulitmately, they are the ones losing out because a AAA exclusive come out about 2-3 times a year, and then they get the bum deal on multi-plats which as I said are turning out better on 360 many times more frequently. If I could only have one console then I wouldn't be choosing a PS3 based on exclusives that's for sure.
Imaduck on 23 Oct '11 said:
I think there's a place for them. They're basically a showcase for a lump of hardware, they put the consoles through their paces. A company can sit down and put every second and person onto getting the best they can out of 1 lump (instead of 3 or 4). It's much more efficient, much easier and in general has led to many of the most noteworthy games of the last decade
but tis a small price to pay for everyone to be catered to surely? I don't want to buy 3 consoles, or even 2 really. I tend to pick the console with the games I want and my PC, and that's more than enough. Last gen it was the PS2, this gen it was the 360, though there is a Wii in my house (who doesn't have 1?!). I'd like to see the lot of them work together more for the good of gaming but what are the chances of that ! 
I guess that means we'll always have the fanboys
Back on subject, it's the same reason we have supercars. They push the limits, there's companies out there inventing new bits to fill gaps and getting the max out of what we do have, to push forwards. That tech ends up all over. If Ferrari had to build a cross-country, family-sized and farm-worthy version of every car, it'll really stifle them, limit them, waste time. Same concept with cosole exclusives.
360 games should be on PC too though, MS you bastards!
Mmmmgrolsch on 23 Oct '11 said:
But it's the 3rd party game's that are the best this gen. Seriously I don't see any point in having both consoles unless you're working part time or really only plays exclusives. I just recently got rid of my 360 again because I simply haven't got the time to play both.
If you have a 360 my advice keep just the 360 yes you will miss out on some great exclusives but the 3rd software is leagues ahead this gen imo.
If you have a PS3 just keep the PS3 yes you will miss out on some great exclusives but the 3rd software is leagues ahead this gen imo.
If you don't have either just pick which one has your preferred Pad and if you just only want to game online then get a 360 otherwise which ever pad and which ever exclusives you prefer.
Whats the f**king point in having numerous systems if one system has more games than you can possibly keep up with? If you can keep up and have s**t loads of time spare then get them all as they all offer truly great exclusives.
apocacrux on 23 Oct '11 said:
I couldn't agree more, if you are going to school or working full time and not in the gaming journalism than there is a slim chance you have time to play all exclusives as well as all third party games on every console. I should know, I own all three and hardly have time just to beat my 360 games.
ricflair on 23 Oct '11 said:
I've got a 360 and PS3 and I'll have bought two, maybe three exclusives this year - infamous 2, Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 if I get it. The only reason I have the two is playing with my mates on 360 and the chaps from here on PS3 and to be honest now I don't even play online that much. I wouldn't get rid of either of them, but if I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have got a PS3. And it would've been the same had I got a PS3 first; I wouldn't have got a 360 as well. Which ever one of them dies first will probably go for good.
There's so little to chose between the two, so perhaps that makes exclusives vital for some people, but I wouldn't care if I missed any of Sony/MS's exclusives - they've been good, but rarely really good. They might have the best graphics, but I don't care about that. Sony's heavy investment in first party exclusives this gen hasn't exactly 'won' them the console war either and MS are fast running out of ideas that aren't kinect based.
The only company that really relies on exclusives at the mo is Nintendo - equally because of the quality of them and the lack of third party games on their console.
DinoT1985 on 24 Oct '11 said:
You think console exclusives are dead not long after Gears of War 3 sold more than 3 million copies and grossed over $1 billion... Err.
mincedbeef on 24 Oct '11 said:
ric, my sentiments exactly. I use PC as my primary system which generally has the best multiplats imo due to many reasons such as graphics, audio, multiplayer, modding and available peripherals etc etc but on the very rare occasion such as the Fifa series has the console version which is the best or for the extremely rare occasion in which there is a great AAA exclusive then I will buy it on console.
I dont buy into the argument for not having enough time on your hands because that comes down to where your threshold is on making a purchase. Just because you own 2 or 3 systems doesnt necessarily mean youre going to be playing 2 or 3 times as many games..............it means you have the ability to cherry-pick the best games within the same timeframe. Personally I only buy what I would deem great games based on successors to personal favourites, demos and opinion from trusted sources. I bought BF2 on release in 2005 and the disc stayed in the drive for 3 years with only a handful of other games ever getting played. Saying that PC titles usually have much more longevity partly based on 3rd party modifications and complete conversions.
There are few console games that can hold my interest for long and when single player games/modes are averaging 6-10 hours these days with a cost of £35-£40 at retail it becomes even less attractive.
Dino......GoW may be great in your opinion and has sold a load of copies and its out at the same time as Forza 4 but what was the last great title that had the same effect on 360 owners? The same goes for PS3, GT5 was a major letdown, the last truly great exclusive was probably Uncharted 2. Its a bad state of affairs when UC3 is gonna be the next one and the amount of time that has passed between these titles.
TykerD3 on 24 Oct '11 said:
t**t. Im a real gamer and i only play Xbox. I could afford a ps3 but there is more important things, like nursery bills and mortgage. You SIR are a prize PRICK
Flamestrike on 24 Oct '11 said:
Could someone explain to me what the heck a "real gamer" is?
ricflair on 24 Oct '11 said:
http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/c/cb/WorldofWarcraft11.jpg
gmcb007 on 24 Oct '11 said:
This.
Funny how I always thought being a gamer meant that you enjoyed playing games. Apparently that is a lie and i'm just a false gamer because I don't spend all my income on it and own both consoles for the sake of a few extra games.
TheLastDodo on 24 Oct '11 said:
What's a 'real' gamer? Hmm. It's hard to explain really but they do exist.
If we were talking about music I'd say the opposite of a 'real' music fan would be someone who only buys one album per year and that one album would be whatevers top of Tesco's album chart at Xmas.
LMAO I've just realised what the gaming equivalent of that would be.
It's hard to explain.
I suppose 'real' could be defined as someone that plays whatever they want and not just what the trendy thing to play is.
damoxuk on 24 Oct '11 said:
Oh dear seems i've upset people. What I meant from real gamers was that playing games from all formats will broaden your gaming tastes not singular tastes.
People really need to chill
At the end of the day if you only play 360 your missing out on superb Uncharted/LBP/Mario games and vice versa in regards to Gear/Fable etc.
But hey I bet you guys who can't "afford" another console have a smartphone what costs twice that eh
martinawatson on 24 Oct '11 said:
Some one who owns any device for playing games released over the past 20 years upto the present day including game and watch,zx81, ps3,iphones,colecovision,3do, gameboy,virtualboy, star wars sit in arcade cabinet etc etc etc but not including any product from microsoft, thats a real true gamer........not startin
cartel on 25 Oct '11 said:
not including microsoft? I much prefer my xbox 360 over my ps3, wii and pc!
martinawatson on 25 Oct '11 said:
not including microsoft? I much prefer my xbox 360 over my ps3, wii and pc!
ok , go on then lets include xbox's 1 and 2 too, hey thats everyone then, anyone who plays a game on any platform and loves it and particularly anyone who comes on here to wax lyrical about they gaming experiences is a true gamer
beemoh on 25 Oct '11 said:
Not dead, just irrelevant.
If any console has a major exclusive now, it's usually met with a counter-exclusive on an opposite platform: Halo/Resistance, Gran Turismo/Forza, Wii Sports/Kinect Sports etc- it's not like last gen where xBox had all the FPSes and the PS2 had all the JRPGs, or the gen before where the PS2 had all the beat 'em ups and racing games and the N64 had... whatever it could get its hands on.
Yes, to an extent the Wii has achieved something similar, but it's so far removed from previous generations- and indeed PS360- that it's not really comparable.
Flamestrike on 25 Oct '11 said:
Some of the best games ever developed is what the N64 had...
Padua on 26 Oct '11 said:
I can see Console exclusives becoming far less attractive next generation. With the power that will be available and the increasingly massive budgets required to produce cinema quality entertainment experiences why would you limit yourself to distributing on one hardware platform when the assets could easily be converted to other consoles, PC or even smart phones?
Call of Duty is a prime example of the perfect way to make a lot of money with relatively little work by porting to almost every platform possible.
As good as Gears or Uncharted are - they will never ever rival the sales of COD if they stick to one platform 
I don't want every console out there because: I haven't got the time, don't care to spend the money on games (as much as I love them) and really hate dealing with mountains of cables :-p It is hard enough keeping on top of what one console offers these days!
What I'd like to see more of is timed exclusives. It makes sense for the manufacturers to push their hardware with exclusives but why not outsource another studio to do conversions in a year or two's time? Also distributing on new services like Onlive would be very welcome - to me at least.
Barca Azul on 26 Oct '11 said:
Im not convinced the 3rd party exclusives sell consoles. It just stops real gamers (who dont have the time or want to get another console) from playing games or content.
I am fortunate to be able to afford both or buy a Wii U if I wanted to, but I really dont see the point. The difference in 3rd party tittles is very slim. Maybe the odd download timed exclusive or whatever, but at the end of the day it doesnt mean anything.
I owned both consoles last gen, but didnt see the point this time out. Both machines this gen have strenths and weaknesses, but its not enough of a difference to make me buy both.
I also dont like the fact that where you buy the game can depend of what content you get for it.
dicky1993 on 26 Oct '11 said:
as an xbox 360 gamer i'm annoyed that whilst looking at zavvi sale PS33 has loads more exclusives and things like MOH REMAKE HD or Prince of persia HD collection and loads of double packs and offers where as microsoft just steal my money and only have a couple of worth to mention exclusives
laslowoodbine on 31 Oct '11 said:
Exclusive definitely aren't dead on the PS3, they're in full flow and have been for almost two years they've been relentless. Well done Sony, all you need to do now is start making reliable console hardware (hint: remove the power supply from the main console like Nintendo) and I won't have a bad word to say about you.
FixBeatGames on 3 Nov '11 said:
it really doesn't matter anyway, but whether multiplatform or exclusive, as long as the game is worth £40-50 of my money i wont moan.
i don't like halo or gears of war, so it was pretty much that that made me go ps3. and (don't get upset, these are MY opinions, not facts i expect you to follow or whatever lol) i'm very glad i chose ps3.
little big planet 1&2, uncharted 1 2&3, MAG, resistance 2&3, killzone 2&3, gran turismo 5, wipeout hd, flower, god of war 3
these are all games i'd have been gutted to have not experienced. so whether they're made in-house or not, as long as the quality keeps being so high, the rivalry between the consoles can only be a good thing for us, the punters!
Very_Silver_Ownz on 3 Nov '11 said:
I'd say its anyone who plays or has a interest in games or goes onto gaming sites.