Xbox 360 doomed?

[Terronium-12]

I'm not really following this thread all too well.

The 360 is still second in terms of units sold worldwide and has a slew of titles going for it, originals, third party, and exclusives (both timed and developer oriented). A lot thought the price hike would do Live in, and has it? No. Even I renewed after all the complaining I did (something I still don't quite understand myself to be honest ). So, what relevance does GoW have to the Xbox's life expectancy as an IP?

It's a great game but it's by no means a console maker. Technically, the Xbox is as popular as it is because of it's online revolution.

 

[eSZee]

Here's a better question...why does it always have to be a contest between two systems?

Last time I checked, video games were supposed to be about fun, not about who won the 'console war'.

Because people need to defend their decision of picking a system by bashing the one they didn't pick.

 

[Joel]

I bought my PS3 for GT5 (mistake IMO), but I don't regret my purchase. Most people will buy whichever is cheaper, and if they can afford either, will buy the system more of their friends play online with. I went backwards, I bought a PS3 even though none of my friends had one, then I convinced my friends to buy PS3's

 

[E28]

The Xbox has an advantage thanks to the fact it arrived earlier, every kid went 'I want one' and got it. Whereas in the UK the PS3 was pratically non-existent in most peoples minds until about 2008, being more expensive. Also the 360 certainly isn't dying (I know a family that have 2 xboxes and 2 sets of kinect :thumbsdown: ), Kinect has just come out but as far as I know it was a bit of a short-term tech craze.

 

[Tornado]

Except they really aren't these days, so it doesn't matter what your opinion is.

Except they are and your opinion doesn't change it.

Except they aren't. This isn't 2007. PS3 multiplatform games are overwhelmingly identical, inferior in a negligible way or considerably better than their 360 counterparts. There are exceptions, but they are exactly that: Exceptions.

Protip: Saying something astoundingly and obviously untrue and then hiding behind "well that's my opinion so you can't say I'm wrong" is a massive copout.
Also:

1. I stand 100% by my opinion that the VAST MAJORITY of third party titles are better on the 360

Except they are and your opinion doesn't change it.

Halo hasn't been the main heavy-hitter on the console since Modern Warfare 2. And Bungie leaving the franchise was a very publicized and controversial decision. So I will reiterate his point: Halo may not have the momentum that it has had in the past going into future games.

Anything that sells 3.5M copies IN A DAY is a `heavy hitter` (your wording)

So it seems someone doesn't actually read posts before they turn on their FANBOY RAEG filter. Because if you did, you would have seen the 15 tons of crap you just tried to shove into my mouth.
I never said the Halo franchise didn't sell well. I said that it wasn't the main seller on the 360, and it hasn't been since the Modern Warfare 2 money train left the station. In fact, Modern Warfare 2 outsold ODST by more than 2:1 despite the latter having what basically amounts to an unlimited PR budget, and Reach was similarly spanked by Black Ops last year.
The Halo cash cow has died down considerably since 2007, and the original developer coming out and saying that they were done with the series over a very publicized series of events isn't going to do it any favors, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

and your speculation of the future isn`t even worth beans.

Also known as: STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME WAAAAH!

No it isn't. You can't even use facebook without a Gold subscription, let alone Netflix.

I wouldn`t waste 5 minutes of someone elses time on facebook let alone my own time.

I really wish you would give me more credit. As it stands, I only have to be half as smart as you seem to think I am to see how painfully clear it was that you hastily changed the subject when proven wrong. Here's a hint: The original topic of discussion was how you can't use Netflix if you don't have a Gold membership. In fact, you can't really do much of anything on XBL without a Gold membership.

You can get game/PSN Plus bundles, too.

My point about the bundles was to the guy too poor to afford $50 for 13 months of LIVE.

And my point as that PSN+ does the same thing. Deal.

No it doesn't.

And YES PSN charges

Again, no it doesn't. This is kind of a "sky is blue" deal that you are arguing against. Feel free to continue, but I'm just pointing out that I don't understand why you would.

Oh boy. A week difference. You know, like 99% of the demos that are on XBL are/were.

now KZ3 SP demo was not free when it first came out you needed the $49.99 whatever they call it PSN package.

And again, stop being so . You can't criticize the PSN+ service for giving PSN+ members a demo a week earlier than everyone else when XBL has literally been doing that for nearly every game demo since the 360 came out.
Particularly when PSN+ is specifically billed as an optional service whose main purpose is to give paying members some extra perks without taking any away from free members, and XBL Gold is a mandatory service unless you don't plan on doing anything online with your 360.

I want scientific studies proving this statement if you are going to pull this crap.

Learn to use google on your own.

Also known as: "I made this crap up, but in order to draw attention away from how obvious that is I am going to insult you for not knowing about it and further insult you for not bothering to look it up, even though it is my prerogative to bring these facts to the table if I'm going to use them to tell people they are wrong."

Even combined with Gears of War sales (11 millions) the 360's exclusives don't sell all that well.

This is balanced out by how most multiplatform titles tend to sell better on the 360.

And the really sad part? That's the 360's best selling exclusive title. GT5 has sold over twice as much

Wait, what?

Except Wii sports sales don't really count 'cause it was bundled with the system and, of course, Nintendo cheated and counted the console sales as game sales.

Wii Sports is a tricky case. PAL/NTSC-U sales cannot be counted fairly because the game is a pack-in in those regions, which normally isn't a problem in and of itself but as far as I'm aware is only available as a pack-in. However, any sales of Japanese copies of the game do count because the game is not a pack-in there.

 

[Bigbazz]

This turned into the typical Playstation vs Xbox flame war. I can see some fanboys are so convinced by their religious beliefs towards their console of choice that they choose to use false information/lies in order to try to swing things their way.


But surely you must know, that it is only yourself you are kidding. If all you are doing is trying to justify the choice you made when you parted money, then i can understand that, but it is not the internet you need to convince, it is yourselves.


The thread is that is the Xbox 360 doomed? Of course it isn't, a crapload of people who own 360's have never played and perhaps never even though about playing Gears of War. The Xbox is doing great, the PS3 is doing great, the Wii is doing great. Infact consoles are doing great, but Nintendo will likely win this round, right under peoples noses, but only by a hair. This world is big enough for the 3 of them.

 

[Terronium-12]

This turned into the typical Playstation vs Xbox flame war. I can see some fanboys are so convinced by their religious beliefs towards their console of choice that they choose to use false information/lies in order to try to swing things their way.


But surely you must know, that it is only yourself you are kidding. If all you are doing is trying to justify the choice you made when you parted money, then i can understand that, but it is not the internet you need to convince, it is yourselves.


The thread is that is the Xbox 360 doomed? Of course it isn't, a crapload of people who own 360's have never played and perhaps never even though about playing Gears of War. The Xbox is doing great, the PS3 is doing great, the Wii is doing great. Infact consoles are doing great, but Nintendo will likely win this round, right under peoples noses, but only by a hair. This world is big enough for the 3 of them.

Um, what?

Solely in relation to the closing point of your statement, in the highly likely situation the Wii does win in terms of units sold (which it's already doing) it won't be "by a hair".

 

[Joey D]

Pffft PC gaming is where it's at foos!

But in all seriousness Microsoft needs to bring out a new console already. The 360 was and still is pretty awesome but it's been out 5 and a half years or so, it's starting to show it's age. The original Xbox was out 5 years I think before the 360 made it to market, at least in the US.

I don't think the Xbox series is doomed at all, the next gen will probably fix all the short comings the 360 had (mainly picking the wrong media format) and will probably be just as awesome as the 360 was.

 

[LaBounti]

Oh noes, the 360 is teh DOOMED

Thanks for reading my post(last sentence).

Joey, Microsoft didn't really have any other option at the time. They don't take chances on their consoles apparently.

 

[Terronium-12]

HD-DVD would still be around and prominently at that had they implemented the drive internally and not as add-on that could do nothing but play movies. If the primary media was on HD-DVD it would have been a different story.

It's entirely Microsoft's fault the format died anyway. Well maybe not entirely, but they sure as hell didn't help much.

 

[Alex p.]

Pffft PC gaming is where it's at foos!

But in all seriousness Microsoft needs to bring out a new console already. The 360 was and still is pretty awesome but it's been out 5 and a half years or so, it's starting to show it's age. The original Xbox was out 5 years I think before the 360 made it to market, at least in the US.

I don't think the Xbox series is doomed at all, the next gen will probably fix all the short comings the 360 had (mainly picking the wrong media format) and will probably be just as awesome as the 360 was.

Eurogamer had today an article, which indicated that Microsoft only just started to look for staff, who should start in the next weeks developing/managing the (developement) of the next Xbox, so we're still at least two years away. I swear, when MS decides to launch the console (2013,2014) with less than 4 maybe even 8 GB main memory, then I do not see the point of releasing a new console. Today's PC's can have 16 GB (or already 32?), by the time the console will come out 16 GB will be more or less the standard. I am not a technical guy at all actually, but before somebody tries to tell me RAM is not important-just don't.
Look at GT5, INSANE car models, but the tracks-and that is my honest opinion-look mostly like total ****. Just today I watched a replay of the TG course and man oh man does this track look hideous, and that's not the only one. Trial Mountain, Deep Forest, Cercuit de La Sarthe, they all look to me like PS2 and I am not exaggerating. In fact, graphically, I like Trial Mountain in GT3 more than in GT5.
An uber CPU won't do ANYTHING. PS2 and PS3 have proven that, their main-processors have been sold as "supercomputers", fact is, they can not replace a decent GPU or main-or videomemory.

 

[AMCNUT]

So, there are two major console exclusives for the Xbox 360 and they are Gears of War and Forza. Those are what one buys a 360 for....Microsoft dose seem to be trying hard to revive their old exclusive titles liike PGR and still Halo, but...the Halo's craze has died out

No, I DEFINITELY think that the Halo franchise is THE greatest asset the 360 has. As an avid Reach player, I can assure you the 'craze' is VERY much alive and well! In fact, the Halo franchise was the ONLY reason I bought a 360!👍

Forza might be strong enough, but I don't think Gears of War would carry even part of it. I tried the second one once and it was inferior in most respects; so-so graphics, generic story, and odd controls ruin it for me... I don't see what the big fuss over this franchise is.

To me, the two marquee franchises will always be Gran Turismo and Halo.

 

[LaBounti]

Eurogamer had today an article, which indicated that Microsoft only just started to look for staff, who should start in the next weeks developing/managing the (developement) of the next Xbox, so we're still at least two years away. I swear, when MS decides to launch the console (2013,2014) with less than 4 maybe even 8 GB main memory, then I do not see the point of releasing a new console. Today's PC's can have 16 GB (or already 32?), by the time the console will come out 16 GB will be more or less the standard. I am not a technical guy at all actually, but before somebody tries to tell me RAM is not important-just don't.
Look at GT5, INSANE car models, but the tracks-and that is my honest opinion-look mostly like total ****. Just today I watched a replay of the TG course and man oh man does this track look hideous, and that's not the only one. Trail Mountain, Deep Forest, Cercuit de La Sarthe, they all look to me like PS2 and I am not exeggerating. In fact, graphically, I like Trial Mountain in GT3 more than in GT5.
An uber CPU won't do ANYTHING. PS2 and PS3 have proven that, their main-processors have been sold as "supercomputers", fact is, they can not replace a decent GPU or main-or videomemory.

Consoles will never need that much ram....... Look at GT5 and imagine what can be done with 10x the video ram. 2.5GB- not 4 or 8. Massively unnecessary costs..

PS3 has 256mb of XDR ram and 256MB for video 2.5-3GB of unified ram is probably the most they will go.

 

[Tornado]

Also keep in mind that the type of PCs that have 8GB of RAM and up are generally being run at resolutions far higher than anything the immediate PS360 successors will ever need to.

 

[eSZee]

Eurogamer had today an article

Microsoft was working on then next XBOX before the 360 was released.

 

[marchi]

it's gears not Halo. gears is easily one of the most overrated games of our times. I have both from their release dates and still haven't even felt compelled to finish gears 2 off in all this time.

Also forget about exclusives, the third party games generally look better and run with a crisper more stable framerate on the 360. And PSN is clearly no match for LIVE. Also most 360 owners prefer the 360 controller to the PS3 one especially for FPS.

So
+ better 3rd party versions
+ Halo franchise
+ better, faster, more robust online service
+ better controller

will keep the 360 alive and well until xbox 3 releases.

Better controller to who?
And I bet you right now that come next gen it will be the Xbox grabbing ports from the PS3 and not the other way around given that Sony's architecture will hardly change where as Microsoft now have to go and develop a new system to upgrade their 'in relative terms' ancient technology'

All Sony have to do is slap on a bigger graphics card, more ram and more cells and its sweet as. Word on the street is that you won't require an entirely new console either thus reducing overhead costs.

 

[Terronium-12]

where as Microsoft now have to go and develop a new system to upgrade their 'in relative terms' ancient technology'

The 360's technology isn't ancient, even in "relative terms". You realize that at current it's the only console available that has the CPU, GPU, and eDRAM onto one package? It's an adaptation of GPGPU, except it's called XCGPU.

All Sony have to do is slap on a bigger graphics card

It's really not that simple.

more ram and more cells and its sweet as.

Yeah, it's sweet as 🤬 is what it'll be. Why would Sony want to make the CBE any more difficult to work with than it already is? You realize one of the prime reasons developers are jumping ship is because of CBE? And considering how linear the architecture already is, adding additional cores (whether they be SPEs or PPEs) isn't going to do them any favors at all. I doubt (unless there's a major revision in how the engine operates) that we'll see such an architecture on the PS4. Cell will likely be streamlined and optimized with minimalist upgrades.

 

[Casio]

I feel stupid just jumping into this stupid thread, but here is the World Wide Sales figures.

# Wii – 84.64 million as of 31 December 2010
# Xbox 360 – 50 million as of 6 January 2011
# PlayStation 3 – 47.9 million as of 31 December 2010

So give or take 2 million (or 4%ish) they have sold exactly the same. Either console is not doomed. If you believe that if Gears of Wars goes to PS3, then 50 million Xbox users will say "**** this ****", then go all go out and buy PS3s you are just delusional.

When you have a 50 million install base developers are not going to ignore you, no matter how easy or hard your system is to code for.

You can go and debate all day long about Xbox Live Subscriptions, Blu ray, Multiplayer Quality, etc, etc. But in the end it obviously means jack all in the scheme of things because they've basically sold the same number of units despite the 360 Sucking and the PS3 being Stupid.

 

[Terronium-12]

When you have a 50 million install base developers are not going to ignore you, no matter how easy or hard your system is to code for.

That's directed toward me, I presume?

 

[Casio]

That's directed toward me, I presume?

It wasn't really, but if you want to read it that way go for gold.

It's just a stupid argument I hear all the time. If the PS3 is so insanely difficult to code for then we would see a lot more Xbox exclusives than PS3 exclusives (regardless of quality), and I'm yet to see any evidence which proves that.

I'm not saying that the PS3 is easier than X360, cause anyone with half a brain knows that the learning curve for PS3 coding is higher than X360. However, if it was that difficult to make games for the PS3, no one would do it, as they couldn't justify the return on investment.

 

[Terronium-12]

It's just a stupid argument I hear all the time. If the PS3 is so insanely difficult to code for then we would see a lot more Xbox exclusives than PS3 exclusives (regardless of quality), and I'm yet to see any evidence which proves that.

Eliminate the rest of the PS3 from the equation; CBE itself is (or, rather was at this point I'd imagine) a pain in the ass to work with. It favors peak performance over simplicity, and that trend continues onward - it favors the 'rising edge' in almost every instance and was such a challenge that several developers expressed displeasure with the platform. As I said earlier, I'd imagine it's easier to work with now, what with Toshiba and Sony practically farming programmers at Georgia Tech. I wouldn't call it a stupid argument (although I know what you mean), but it is entirely valid. Adding more cores would worsen what's still a nuisance.

I'm not saying that the PS3 is easier than X360, cause anyone with half a brain knows that the learning curve for PS3 coding is higher than X360. However, if it was that difficult to make games for the PS3, no one would do it, as they couldn't justify the return on investment.

With all of the programmers and architects coming from the STI Center and all of that collective feedback it most likely isn't as big of a problem as it was when the platform was still new to the market - I doubt I'll find any of those same complaints now. My point was adding more cores to the architecture wouldn't be the smartest thing to do. It's already a bottleneck in the PS3 as is, in fact, it's the only piece of hardware (aside from the optical drive) that is future-proofed, not to mention how expensive the R&D is.

 

[Alex p.]

Consoles will never need that much ram....... Look at GT5 and imagine what can be done with 10x the video ram. 2.5GB- not 4 or 8. Massively unnecessary costs..

PS3 has 256mb of XDR ram and 256MB for video 2.5-3GB of unified ram is probably the most they will go.

I disagree.

If you want true, native 1080p, 60 frames, 4xAA, 8xAF, and surroundings in the game, which, in some cases, should not look like something from Microsoft's Flight Simulator from 1998, you WILL need 4-8 GB mainmemory-I am not talking about videomemory-2GB should suffice there, yes.

I don't even understand the cost factor either. RAM was at an all-time low from a price perspective, by the time the consoles come out, 4-8 GB will not cost too much and obviously they will get cheaper over the years.

Oh and I give you an example. I have a brand new PC. 4GB Ram, good mainboard and HDD, 4-core processor, and a GTX460 with 1GB videomemory.
When I run Crysis1 in 1080p, 4xAA, 8xAF, I STILL do not reach 60 fps. Thing is, I would like to look the next-gen games considerably better than Crysis (as it was launched in what?-2007?) And at that I want the new games still running in 1080p, 60 frames, 4xAA and 8xAF. I am very sure the 4-8 GB memory will be more than needed.

 

[Spagetti69]

Their still selling Xbox at my local game store. Grab one before doomsday.

Uh, when is doomsday predicted again....

 

[Bigbazz]

To the person who said that Microsoft were already working on the next Xbox before the 360 was released.

Why would they work on the new consoles based on technology that would be almost 10 years behind? the original Xbox 360 was released in 2005, the new one is said to be coming around 2013/2014, by which point all of the technology they could possibly have been working on would be outdated.


For that reason, consoles will always be old technology. When they are released they have to be high performance aswell as price competitive, and while they are good performance for the money (companies needing to take low profits or losses initially), they are already behind the technology available on PC's before they are released, for them to even take full advantage of the current technology of the time would cost them far too much, and the price of the console would need to be too high. Which is partly what happened with the PS3, and why it got off to such a slow start.


As for Crysis, you can run that game and it can look absolutely fantastic, without having to run it at 4xAA and 8xAF. Those settings really make such a small difference, consoles never have and never will be reaching those kind of levels if they want to make games look pretty. I have an old PC from 2006-2007 and i can run Crysis1 (which is no worse than Crysis 2, since they developed 2 for consoles) at 1920x1080 on forced hardcore settings, but with no AA and only 4x AF at above 30fps and it looks fantastic, much better than what any game on the current consoles can do with their very low blurry resolutions (upscaled images etc, yuck).

That game is a bad example however, despite it being one of the best looking games (still) it is also one of the most power hungry games available on the PC.

 

[Tornado]

When I run Crysis1 in 1080p, 4xAA, 8xAF, I STILL do not reach 60 fps. Thing is, I would like to look the next-gen games considerably better than Crysis (as it was launched in what?-2007?) And at that I want the new games still running in 1080p, 60 frames, 4xAA and 8xAF. I am very sure the 4-8 GB memory will be more than needed.

That's because Crysis runs with the efficiency of a V12 with 5 dead cylinders.

 

[ShylockHolmes]

Except the Halo is the 37th best selling series. Yup. 37th. They are tied at 30 million units with Tekkan, Medal of Honor, Street Fighter, Kirby, James Bond and Tony Hawk. Yeah. They've sold slightly better than Tony Hawk and when is the last time that series produced a good title? Even combined with Gears of War sales (11 millions) the 360's exclusives don't sell all that well.

And the really sad part? That's the 360's best selling exclusive title. GT5 has sold over twice as much and Nintendo...still has the best selling franchises. And you can't forget GTA. It's sold 9million more units than GT5 and it started out life as a Playstation exclusive.

In fact, game for game, Gran Turismo and GTA are the two best selling franchises of all time.

Unless you're 9 years old, who cares about Nintendo's franchises? How was it waiting all that time for GTA IV DLC on the ps3 while 360 owners had already finished it and moved on to ALAN WAKE? The 360 also has a powerful enough scaler to output every game at 1080p unlike the ps3 which many times can't scale past 720p.

Oh noes the 360 is teh doomed. Great thread, lowering IQ's one at a time.

 

[Scaff]

Unless you're 9 years old, who cares about Nintendo's franchises? How was it waiting all that time for GTA IV DLC on the ps3 while 360 owners had already finished it and moved on to ALAN WAKE? The 360 also has a powerful enough scaler to output every game at 1080p unlike the ps3 which many times can't scale past 720p.

Oh noes the 360 is teh doomed. Great thread, lowering IQ's one at a time.

Have a two day holiday.

This is too all members, if you are not able to discuss or argue a point without attacking others then you put your membership at risk.

Debate is encouraged, but respect for your fellow members is demanded when doing so.


Scaff

 

[Terronium-12]

I disagree.

What are you disagreeing with?

If you want true, native 1080p, 60 frames, 4xAA, 8xAF, and surroundings in the game, which, in some cases, should not look like something from Microsoft's Flight Simulator from 1998, you WILL need 4-8 GB mainmemory

No you will not. System RAM doesn't have the same responsibilities as GDDR RAM. Having a decent amount of RAM available is paramount to overall system capability, yes, but it has no relation to what you're describing - that's why video cards have had dedicated onboard RAM for quite a long time now.

I don't even understand the cost factor either. RAM was at an all-time low from a price perspective, by the time the consoles come out, 4-8 GB will not cost too much and obviously they will get cheaper over the years.

That's probably DDR2 you're thinking of. DDR3 has gotten a lot cheaper now as well but the higher the clock speed or memory capacity the more you're going to pay as it's harder to fab those modules without any fault tolerance. Not to mention you seem to be confusing the desktop PC 'comfort zone' with that of console-specific hardware. It won't be as cheap as you probably think it will be. It'll have to work with the rest of the platform without crippling the performance or presenting itself as a bottleneck.

Oh and I give you an example. I have a brand new PC. 4GB Ram, good mainboard and HDD, 4-core processor, and a GTX460 with 1GB videomemory.
When I run Crysis1 in 1080p, 4xAA, 8xAF, I STILL do not reach 60 fps. Thing is, I would like to look the next-gen games considerably better than Crysis (as it was launched in what?-2007?) And at that I want the new games still running in 1080p, 60 frames, 4xAA and 8xAF. I am very sure the 4-8 GB memory will be more than needed.

CryEngine 2 isn't the best optimized engine in the PC world, so I fail to see the point you're making.

Why would they work on the new consoles based on technology that would be almost 10 years behind? the original Xbox 360 was released in 2005, the new one is said to be coming around 2013/2014, by which point all of the technology they could possibly have been working on would be outdated.

I find that claim to have no foundation at all. They could have been planning since 2005 and been able to outline what advancements had to be made; with fabrication sizes being as small as they are now, the 360's successor could be very well be the same size as the current S redesign. As far as hardware goes, the 360 itself is still planted well enough to not be considered outdated. When you compare and contrast the differences and advantages it's still on par with some technologies now with the 360 S. And everyone already knows what the PS3 has - Cell and XDR.

For that reason, consoles will always be old technology. When they are released they have to be high performance aswell as price competitive, and while they are good performance for the money (companies needing to take low profits or losses initially), they are already behind the technology available on PC's before they are released, for them to even take full advantage of the current technology of the time would cost them far too much, and the price of the console would need to be too high. Which is partly what happened with the PS3, and why it got off to such a slow start.

Except they aren't old technology. The 360 has GPU capabilities that weren't fully unveiled to the PC scene until the R600 came about (HD 4000), and is the only the console on the market that uses unified shaders, the only console on the market that combines the CPU, GPU onto one die with the eDRAM as collective whole (on the same package). The PS3 uses independent shaders, which when compared to the 360, wastes clock cycles. It does however have OpenCL and nVidia's Cg which is a heavy contributor to how fantastic visuals can look on the PS3 when the proper time is taken.

 

[Alex p.]

No you will not.

Ok. So we expect max. 2GB main-and 2GB videoram, so, a total of maximum 4GB.

I can bet now already that games, on such a hardware, will never look consideraby better than Crysis, when they are run under these specs: 1080p, 60fps, 4xAA and 8xAF.
You will see.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Doomed because of 1 game series? Not at all. The online play is still years ahead of the PS3. BUT if the GOW and Halo series went to the PS3, then that might be a different story. Halo is one of the top exclusive game series on the 360.

I see no problem with games going multiplatform at all. Be happy that we get some of the titles that used to be PS2 or PS3 only. Now they are on the 360.

GTA4
Devil May Cry 4
Final Fantasy 13
Metal Gear
Resident Evil 5

The days of "exclusives" are LONG gone. In fact they should not even use the word exclusive anymore because it really means nothing.