First of all, thank you for fixing the broken comments link.
During the 16-bit days, we saw how great Nintendo and Sega were in creating quality first-party software (and establishing the popular videogames we know and love). Those franchises were what set the two consoles apart, but was it the first-party software that kept those consoles selling, or was it the number of third-party games?
Why did Sega's hardware fail, yet they had great first party software (as did Nintendo), but just like Nintendo, did not have "great" third-party software? Was it really the fault of the hardware?
It appeared (and in some ways, still does), even with great first-party games, a console's success is mainly based on the number of titles (quality not being that big of an issue).
However, as we have seen, some third-parties have made some AWESOME, quality third-party titles over the years, giving the first-party games a run for their money in cases.
Unfortunately, some of those quality (third party) titles have been over-looked by consumers (Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, etc). So, even though some third-party developers are making quality games...maybe quality isn't the biggest issue with (most) casual gamers.
Do numbers count more than quality?
Well, with "exclusives" I think their is a higher expectation of "quality" to make numbers, so to speak. But who the hell knows if that game will sell or not, even if it's AAA.
What about the term "ONLY ON", when we look at videogame covers. Does that REALLY matter to us?
Consumers will mainly buy, based on popularity. Therefore, videogame companies can gamble on trying to secure a certain property to their console to drive numbers. However, we have seen some of these "exclusives" turn into flops and buyouts of companies going South. It's about risk.
"Exclusivity", as we have seen for many years in the videogame industry, has certainly been crucial for a console's (and company's) success. Not the main reason, but a part of it.
PC titles that were exclusive for a while, have also been ported to the consoles (i.e. F.E.A.R, Doom, Quake, Half-Life 2, The Sims, etc). And even HALO and HALO 2 are on the PC and Mac. Sure there are other PC games that have yet to come to consoles (World of Warcraft), with ports coming to consoles, you got to wonder how long the PC will last, especially in the next-gen console era.
The PC is unique in terms of how to play the games (keyboard and mouse), but with so many console ports being released, what is really left on the PC to be "exclusive"?
Here are some of the accomplishments and failures, and other interesting facts, with third-party partnerships/exclusives on the consoles:
-Look at the success Nintendo had with the Square partnership, back in the NES and Super NES days. And now, Sony's success with Square with the past two Playstation consoles.
-Not to mention the success Nintendo also had with Rare Ltd. in the Super NES and Nintendo64 days. And now, Rare is with Microsoft, bringing to the Xbox 360 franchises that were once (or were going to be) on Nintendo consoles. And as a result, Rare's games, recently, have been getting mixed reviews.
-The success Metal Gear Solid has been on the past two Playstation consoles (even though MGS 2 and MGS: TTS were released on the Xbox and GCN).
-Capcom's success with the Resident Evil franchise (mainly) on the Playstation for a while, until the (kick-ass) Resident Evil 4 appeared on the GCN.
-Nintendo creating the "Dream Team" for the Nintendo64, that included many developers, but ultimately, it failed to do what it exactly wanted to do.
-Factor 5 creating "exclusive" Star Wars games for the Nintendo64 and GCN. And now, they are creating an exclusive game on the PS3 (Lair).
-All those "exclusive" Nintendo64 third-party games that had "64" at the end of each title (Doom64, for example).
-Sega becoming a third-party and releasing their games across multiple platforms (some games, being exclusive to to a specific console).
-Nintendo buying Silicon Knights and only releasing one great game, Eternal Darkness. Now, Silicon Knights is creating Too Human for the Xbox 360.
-Konami releasing Contra (once on Nintendo's console) and other Konami franchises on PS.
-Namco releasing Tekken ONLY on Sony consoles.
-Capcom ONLY releasing Devil May Cry on Sony consoles.
-Capcom releasing Street Fighter, and other Capcom franchises on the PS and Xbox and not N64/GCN.
-BioWare/Pandemic releasing KOTR and KOTR II: Sith Lords to Xbox and then, brings Jade Empire to Xbox as an exclusive.
-"Malice" is a game from Argonaut that was supposed to be an Xbox exclusive, after much delay, finally was released on multiple consoles, with disappointing results.
-Oddworld Inhabitants released Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee "exclusively" to Xbox, after making Oddworld games for PS and other platforms. "Stranger's Wrath" is then released to Xbox (as exclusive) and fails to sell. Oddworld Inhabitants goes under.
-Tecmo releasing Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox, as well as the Dead or Alive franchise.
-"Geist" made by N-Space and published by Nintendo, fails to sell.
-Nintendo forms Retro Studios to create multiple "exclusive" genre games for Gamecube, yet produces a masterpeice, known as, Metroid Prime and then goes on to create the equally impressive, Metorid Prime 2: Echoes.
-Bethesda Softworks releasing Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Xbox and Xbox360.
-Project Gotham Racing ONLY appearing on Xbox consoles, from third-party, Bizarre Creations.
-Microsoft buys Bungie (developer of Myth, Oni, etc) and HALO becomes an (unexpected) phenomenon on the Xbox.
-Sony buys Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Guerilla games, after the success of Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet and Clank and Kill-Zone.
-Ninendo and Capcom strike a deal to bring five games "exclusively" to the GCN. Well, that certainly had some mixed results, even with the success of Resident Evil 4.
-GTA exclusive on PS2 (for a while) and now, GTA IV will be "exclusive" to the Xbox360.
-Future "Splinter Cell" games will appear on the Xbox360, after the multi-platform release of "Double Agent".
-Ubi Soft's "Assissan's Creed" (once thought to be a PS3 exclusive) is now also coming to the Xbox360.
This next statement can be argued, but...
Ironically, Microsoft's and Sony's "success" with their consoles is because of "out-side parties" (Bungies wasn't always a Micorosft first-party developer). Imagine those games, such as HALO, GTA, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, etc. not appearing on the Playstation and Xbox?
Would the PS and Xbox be as popular now, if they did not have those games?
What if Square/Nintendo didn't have a relationship back in the 16-bit days?
I could never imagine Nintendo's characters appearing on other consoles (let's not think about the CD-I Zelda games), but at one time, I would've said that same thing about Sega and look what happened to them...
God of War is an internal Sony property, so I don't think we would ever see that on other consoles (unless, Sony went third-party...again).
"Exclusivity" is important, especially now, with third-party games such as, Gears of War, Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry 4, GTA IV, etc. appearing on specific consoles. It's what makes those consoles "unique" and attract gamers to that specific console. Taking away what the competitors can't use (EA and the NFL license, for example).
Is it right? Well, it's business and I'm sure we'll never see the days of every third-party games being on every console, such as the 16-bit Super NES and Genesis, and having gamers compare which console has the "best" version of a game.
Sure, ports of games are still appearing on multiple consoles, but it's not like the 16-bit days. Things have gotten a LOT more competitive.
Nintendo still has (mostly) their first-party software to rely on, Sony and Microsoft now have first-party and third-party software to rely on. I guess it will continue to be that way...
In my opinion, I think first-party games should ONLY appear on the console that is supported by the specific company, but third-party games...if, for example, a third-party franchise was multi-platform at one point, then I think that third-party should stay multi-platform.
However, if a third-party wanted to create a new franchise/property for a specific console, then let them. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of videogame companies trying to secure a popular (third-party) franchise on one console. If possible, I want the games that were multi-platform to begin with, to stay multi-platform.