I don't own a 360, so I was kind of excited by this news. I thought for a moment about the fact that I wouldn't be able to play the first ME before the second, something that normally really bugs me, but decided I probably wouldn't make it through the first one anyway with all of the annoyances I've heard it contains. I'm glad you think the second explains the events of the first well.

I didn't know about that announcement until just now. This may be the only way I (and many others) will get to play Mass Effect 2, so I'm all for it getting a PS3 version. But I really don't care about the first one anymore -- I'm absolutely positive that I would never finish it anyway. (I guess that means I agree?)

It does a good job explaining things, but my first time around I approached the game with a shoot first ask questions later mentality. I got invested in the story the second time around which made me realize when the game was explaining events from the first one and when it wasn't. It really is a great game. Enjoy

I don't believe in console exclusives. I think it's foolish for a publisher/developer to limit their potential customer base to just the gamer of one console. I am an advocate of the nebulous "one console future." (Or just dragging everyone back to a PC, which is the only open "console" out there.)

Console exclusives give the console an identity. I link Mario with Nintendo and Kratos with Sony. A "one console future" would be cool, but I think the console war is necessary. Without it, fanboys would start turning on each other as they argued about which game is better on the same console. Even though the emphasis on making great games would probably be higher.

There is a lot of fallacy in this article. To start off with, Microsoft Game studios does not own the license to the game series, and never has. The game was developed by Bioware, and published by EA, who has ownership of Bioware at the time. There is no way EA is going to hand off the series to another publisher permanently, and they didn't. The 360 version of the first game was the only one granted to microsoft, and that was only for the 360. What EA decides later on is none of Microsoft's business.

Second, the article is reading as a "reasons why PS3 ME2 will fail" not as a "Why it should remain Xbox only." And those arguments are largely subjective and poorly worded you even mention how it will work then say it won't. You also bounce into "why a ME1 PS3 port will fail" and don't even mention why, which is a twofold problem. First is that it's not on topic (your discussion is about ME2, I think. It's hard to tell), second, you need to explain your reasons, as though it may be obvious to you, it's not obvious to other people.

Finally, exlusivity means one platform and only one platform. The first two Mass Effect games are not exclusive because they are avilable on the PC. And no, the PC does not mean it is exclusive becaue of Microsoft's ownership of the windows OS. You cannot take a 360 save and use it on the PC version or vice versa. They are seperate systems which renders your entire argument null. (And for the track record, ME1 and ME2 for the PC are published by EA itself, with microsoft involved in and getting nothing)

The article misses the point and is largely self defeating due to a lack of research and a lack of coherence.

You read my title wrong. If you read my description, I was saying why I think the FIRST Mass Effect should stay an Xbox "exclusive". Maybe I should have titled it "Why Mass Effect should remain a Microsoft Exclusive." I'm cool with Mass Effect 2 coming to the PS3. Good for PS3 gamers, but I know some people (like myself) are wondering why the first one isn't coming with it. I could care less if Mass Effect 2 fails. I'm not making any money off of it.

I'm a console gamer so I rendered the PC version irrelevant since Mass Effect 2 coming to the PS3 doesn't matter to them either way. I apologize for my ignorance to PC gamers, but can't you play the PC version with a 360 controller? The 360 version of the first Mass Effect was published by Microsoft Games Studios and 6 months later the PC edition was released published by EA. I'm not an expert in the world of publishing, but I don't think Sony could port the first Mass Effect without hearing anything from Microsoft Games Studios.

Lack of research (seriously?) isn't the issue, maybe lack of knowing how the gaming industry politics work. Forgive me

@Errol Why would I want to play Mass Effect PC with an Xbox 360 controller? The whole point of playing on PC for many PC gamers is using the flexibility and increased options of the keyboard and mouse. 

@Errol Fanboys should be the lowest item on the "things to consider when making a game" list. The problem with multiple consoles is that they get gamers talking about hardware when we should really be discussing software. After all, isn't it about the games? It's like arguing about the cookware used to make a meal when you should be discussing the food. 

@Jason I never thought of that. Good point

@Jason Focusing on software should be the main focus, but I think competition it what drives things like a Blu-Ray player in the PS3, and motion controls for the Wii. The hardware developers could get lazy and not feel the need to upgrade graphics or be innovative if they were the only people making the consoles. Competition is good, even if it's expensive.

So relating to the whole concept of PC and Console wars, heres another topic altogther: Which platform is easier for players to hack and pirate the software on? 

Fanboys shifting the nature of their arguments is a miniscule price to pay for making games accessible to all. Unless there's a technical obstacle with making a game cross-platform, it should be done as a matter of course.

The identity of the console is its aesthetic, the nature of the interface, the support, the cost, and so on. The console is the hardware.

Sonic gave - and still gives - Sega an identity. It doesn't need to be tied for a console for that to be so. Mario could be on the Xbox, but he'd still be qunitessentially Nintendo.

I'm surprised it only took 12 comments.

But we don't need a "one console" future -- we need a [i]one format[/i] future. All other media are standardized -- e.g., any DVD will play in any DVD player. It doesn't matter who is the hardware manufacturer.

But video games are like mini-monopolies. Imagine if you could only play Warner Bros. movies in a Warner Bros. built DVD player, just like we can only play Nintendo games in a Nintendo system?

@Errol - but if all core games were on all consoles, innovative hardware would be the only way to make one console more desirable than another to core gamers. Wouldn't that drive hardware development even further?

@Jeff Dreamcast comes to mind when you bring up the ease of pirating software

@Ben Sonic is a homeless mascot. That's the way I've seen him ever since Sonic Adventure 2 Battle was released on the Gamecube. Yeah he's still the heartbeat of Sega, but we both know Sega would still be making hardware if they could.

I can't see the day where the big 3 comes together to develop one console. They'd argue over everything from launch titles to the design of the control. I'd rather have console exclusives. Making a game multiplatform could be seen as the developers (or publishers) intention of making the maximum profit. When a console exclusive sells well it's usually an example of how great both the console and game actually is.

A "one format future" would be nice, but we'd have gaming machines made by everyone from Sony to off brand Chinese knockoffs. There would have to be something that set them apart from each other. Exclusive software seems to be a great answer.

The idea of making every game multiplatform would be cool. It'd save us all money, but I don't know. I like being able to switch to my Wii from my PS3 whenever a Wii game comes around.

I take your point about sonic and I see where you're coming from, but I can't get past the idea that many of us gamers can only afford one console and we're denied access to perfectly portable content for fairly superficial reasons. I agree with Rob, I think we're past the stage of multiple media formats (although I believe Rob's wrong in his DVD example, regional DRM is still sadly alive and well as far as I know).

Very interesting discussion though.

I remember I had to trade in my Playstation 2 to buy a Gamecube for the Resident Evil RE:Make which is a decision I don't regret to this day. This generation isn't so bad with exclusives as far as the 360 and PS3 go. A lot of formerly excluisuive titles are launching multiplatform, which I think will continue to be the case as exclusive titles become more successful. This could lead to more original IP's being the staple of console exclusives which would be cool.

"One format" gaming is already a reality -- it's called PC gaming. And it's already derided my many console gaming enthusiasts for being too complicated and delivering inconsistent results on different hardware.

Not exactly, Jay. I can't play SNES games on my PC without skirting the law.

That's not a fault with PC gaming, though. As Jason pointed out, it's the only open platform. But the closed-hardware nature of consoles means that we haven't reached a single format for games yet.

Did the first game have any unplayable-rendering annoyances to speak of?  I played through it just fine, with nary a complaint I might add.  I actually found ME2 to be a bit more stale than the first, honestly.

I wouldn't have any objections to having it released on the PS3.  It was a great game that many people should be allowed to enjoy.

@jay  Also not every console game legally ends up on the PC. I don't think we'll ever see Uncharted 2 at retail stores for the PC.

@Bryan none that I know of. Then again I only played it for a day or two.

I question whether it would be impossible for them to publish Mass Effect on the PS3. EA published the PC version of the original, which would suggest that they have the publishing rights to that game. Though I can't confirm this, it would be strange if EA couldn't publish the first on the PS3, but they were able to on the PS3. I assume people remember Ninja Gaiden and Ninja Gaiden Sigma. A name change brought that to the PS3.

You are forgetting the development process here. You say that a long time has passed since the days of long elevator rides and driving the Mako on planet surfaces, but that's where tweaking comes in. It would be unlikely that if Bioware was to make a PS3 Version of the first, that they would leave it as it is. They would work out bugs and tweak features as they port it, or at least, we would hope so. The same will most likely happen for the PS3. They have time to work out any problems with the 360 version, and make the PS3 version slightly less buggy.

@steven yeah Bioware could fix the bugs in Mass Effect for the PS3, or they could present their latest creation, Mass Effect 2, for a new audience. Mass Effect 2 is in bound to win at least one Game of the Year award from a respectable gaming site. My money would be on Kotaku or Bitmob ^_^

Stephen, Tecmo published the 2004 release of Ninja Gaiden -- not Microsoft.

interesting article that got me thinking about taking sides. i personally like exclusives but if they do start crossing over with older games then yea a dicounted price should be warranted. but thats what i think

I certainly don't mind Bioware getting more money for their masterpiece of a game. They deserve it. I'm a 360 owner by the way. I've decided over the last year or so that I'd much rather be a developer fanboy than a corporation fanboy. It seems to be working pretty well for me so far...

Mass Effect 2 should become a Platinum hits title for the 360 this holiday season. Then show up for $29.99 in January. It's up against Dead Space 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, and I think some other big titles expected in January. It needs a leg up in the battle.

@ Riley never though fanboys could have subcultures. Didn't think they were smart enough. Thanks for proving me wrong. Developers need love too.