Console exclusive games are a bad thing

PS5 vs Xbox Series X: Why Exclusivity Makes the Winner

if this article had been on a nintendo site, or one that covers all consoles, you might see it with different eyes.
But here I have to say: a pretty one-sided view.
the generation of players, the attitudes of the players, their social skills, the type of games they like and and and up to the financial possibilities actually have an influence on what you buy and what you use

and now everything at the beginning:
if you go back in time a little bit then at some point there was atari with an idea that, if not the first, was actually the best known.
after that the c64 actually follow and then again came sega and nintendo followed by atari and amiga.
and if nintendo hadn't built such a must, sony would never actually have jumped on the train.
the result? sony could hold on, nintendo too, nobody talks about sega anymore
msa then decided to get on board and we already had the big 3.

But what is missing now is the objectivity that every fanboy, regardless of which camp he belongs to, mostly simply ignores:
take e.g. simply the time sony vs nintendo vs sega
sega was the only competitor for a long time, if you wanted to call it that way with nintendo, and so both actually always encouraged each other to bring something better until then nintende made the big mistake with sony and brought the playstation onto the market.
the thing was then just more appealing than sega and unlike nintendo, which was the hit of the console century.
but what is often forgotten here is that sony is japanese, but the aim is not primarily the japanese. So the clientel that was served with the games was a completely different one, after all, you were new to the business and had to build yourself up.
while sega then discovered the arcade machines, sony and nintendo stayed with the home consoles and developed further up to ms with the xbox.

and that's where it actually starts:
nintendo simply serves a different clientele than ms and sony.
In a way, sony had the pc players in his pocket who wanted to play on their tv. while nintendo pc players weren't really interested.
ms with the xbox went away the same. pc player to turn to tv and turn away your piece of cake there.
and it has basically remained until today, whereby ms now again wants to serve both at the same time, while sony still relies on exclusive, but the n different topic.
Wodrums actually goes, nintendo stubbornly went on its way with the clientele of gamers that they always had, while sony, let's just say:, the pc has gone. Different hardware, different clientele that you address and therefore no really direct competition but rather a coexistence despite all previous history.

From a completely neutral point of view, ms is neither the enemy, nor the nasty stabber, nor anything, but simply the bringer of salvation (yes, I know, you can take that as a fanboy talk, but read on before your brain breaks down again).

so we were there that nintendo goes its own way. This means on the one hand that for the type of game that you produce, a significantly weaker hardware is necessary, so that old hardware can be kept for longer and real innovations can actually last a relatively long time. weinfach because here the goal is never or was to bring photographic graphics.
Sony, on the other hand, didn't really need this either, precisely because of the other gaming clientele.
but since ms came on the scene, there was suddenly a direct competition that wanted to win over the same players, which worked out halfway. just because thing with the cable on the xbox was a nice thing, which then had a unique selling point, although not really important 🙂
sony had a competition in any case and now had to go up against this competition. because it is usually not so that the buyers have enough financial strength to buy both consoles, especially since nintendo offered the greater variety than the second console.
consequently: direct competition between sony and ms where each side tries to find their buyers.

so, and now that the prehistory is over, let's get to the real points.
nintendo is left out here, because no one will really want to contest that, their hardware doesn’t even come close to ms or sony, but what for? they don’t want to because they have a different clientele.
ms and sony, on the other hand, advertise the art of the buyer, which in turn means that both have to watch to get better. better hardware, better games better around it.
while ps3 and xbox 360 sometimes quite diverged, this is no longer the case since ps4 and xbox one and in this generation both are on the market with new hardware almost at the same time.
which is actually not bad for the buyer, but for the fanboys it is.
From a really neutral point of view, it actually runs in terms of hardware technology, but we would not be guaranteed today, when the ps5 and the series x are in the starting blocks, if ms were not forced onto the market.
then the direct competition would still have been nintendo alone and this in turn is known to coexist with other gaming clientele.
if ms had never thrown the xbox on the market, we would be today in the best case with a ps4, simply for the reason that there would have been no need to compete with the pc. Although the pc gamers are also a customer of sony, they are still far too differently located (just take the disacceptance of digital only here, while no one is screaming for disks on the pc). therefore one can, completely neutral, consider ms as a bringer of salvation that we have what we now have at all.

but back to the beginning of the text:
everyone is different, some tall, some small, some thin, some fat, some young, some old, etc.
Although you can argue that exclusive titles are the only commodity here, if you are honest, then these are the games that are played the least.
if you take a look at the top 100 of the best-selling x1 ps4 games, you will see around 90% of both from the titles that are represented on both consoles. and if you take the top 10, then nothing really looks rosy for either side 🙁
but what does that mean at the same time that these multi-titles are what is mainly played and that starts with the differentiation between the company and the players.
i stand by x1, not because it has more power, not because it has more fps, not because i think ms has the better games, no, i stand by x1 because in my opinion ms has the better controller.
and I am someone who can afford both, also a small but very fine difference.
i have ne ps4pro for sony exclusive which i am interested in but i use the box for multiplatform simply because it can be played better with the box controller for mcih.
And I'm not alone there either.
of course, there are also people who see it the other way round and consider the ps4 to be the crown of creation, but everyone is different.

However, to go over and claim based on the exclusive title that this is the only reason to buy and that the guit would be like that, sorry I am dead, actually pure fanboy talk.
I don't play with a controller all the time, because that's what I use most of the time, just because there are such great exclusives. I do that when I can't afford both, but even then everyone would rather forego the exclusive ones instead of struggling with a controller that is simply not in their hands.

the people who are interested in the games themselves have more choice than just a console and use what is best for them, or where the most friends have the most who use the same. no matter whether it is ms or sony or anyone else 3. the market is on.
clearly ms has the disadvantage that their games appear for the pc at the same time, but from a gamer's point of view this is actually more of an advantage than a disadvantage. especially since sony is now jumping on the train.

but to cry around here every time and to claim "sony has the best and sony is the greatest" is quite normal for a playstastion site, but otherwise just pitifully disbelieving and not farsighted.