"So, what's this fuss over exclusives?"

It's the entire reason to choose to own a platform, that's why it's a big fuss. The more exclusives, the more value to that system. Why have a system if all of its best games are on OTHER platforms?

That's why I bought a PS3 in '08, even though I owned a 360. The 360 was offering very little that was unique to itself, so I bought a system with its own original content. And honestly, that fact hasn't changed much in the past 2 years. What didn't gravely disappoint on the 360 in 2010 (ie SSC and Crackdown 2) wasn't unique to the system. And no, I'm not interested in another Halo (especially one that starts taking so many cues from Call of Duty) or a repetitive "horror" (If you can call it that when the game makes sure that you're majorly aware of every threat) title that makes you buy DLC to complete the story. The 360's best of the year were indie titles.

Exclusive games DEFINE consoles. Exclusives are quite important.
If there isn't a battle for the best exclusives, things start to stagnate, and we don't see as many great games.

What's funny is that it's the ps3 fanatics that are trying to redifine things.

I have been gaming as long as gaming has been around and I know for a fact that the term "console exclusive" has been in use for quite some time. It wasn't invented by "xbots" as some of you claim. The gaming press has long recognized the distinction of console exclusives.

It is you ps3 fanboys that are being willfully obtuse. If you don't recognize the impact console exclusives have and want to pretend that they are no different than any full multiplatform game you are just being blinded by bias.

Obviously console exclusives are different from both single-platform exclusives as well as full multiplatform games, thus the term helps to make a useful distinction.

That is, unless you are a rabid fanboy whose apparent sole purpose in life is to brag up "your" console and minimize the value of the other consoles any way you can. Which is exactly why ps3 fanboys have started to attack the concept of console exclusives this generation.

However, ps3 fanboys have shown themselves to be completely inconsistent in this regard. They only treat the PC as a legitimate platform when it suits their agenda. For example, when they want to act like console exclusives have no value because, you know, the PC is a platform too. But when a freaking console game gets awarded best graphics they make excuses for such nonsense, saying that the consoles are only competing with each other.

Gamespot awarded GOW3 best technical graphics, which is shameful because about a half a dozen PC games easily destroy GOW3 on a technical level.

So which is it? Either the PC is a legitimate platform that we are going to pretend is not fundamentally different from the consoles or we are going to recognize that the PC is a gaming platform, but one that is different from consoles in some fundamental ways.

If the PC is essentially just another console as you guys sometimes pretend, then don't make excuses for why an inferior console game was awarded best technical graphics when everybody knows that PC games destroy console games in terms of graphics.

Oh, one more thing. You guys often repeat this meme about "exlusive means available on only one platform", but this isn't really correct. If you define the arena within which something is exclusive the term is still being used correctly.
For example, Toyota could advertise that their sedans are the only sedans to exclusively offer rear side airbags. (this is not true, but the analogy is what is important) This doesn't mean that said feature is only found on one model of their sedans, nor does it mean that such a feature isn't found on SUVs or other types of vehicles. It would still be a proper use of the word because you have defined the arena (sedans) and, more importantly, the distinction makes sense, ie most people who are shopping for sedans are not going to suddenly go get an SUV just because it has that feature.

So, does the same principle apply in the gaming world? Yes, it clearly does. Consoles have distinct properties that distinguish them from a PC. There is obviously some overlap between PC gamers and console gamers (such as myself), but I know a great deal of PC gamers that don't care about consoles, and I have also seen many console gamers that don't want to deal with the perceived hassles of PC gaming. Therefor the console arena is a valid distinction. The fact that there is overlap doesn't mean that the distinction goes away. That is why console exclusives are a distinct category from both full multiplatform games as well as single-platform exclusives.

That's how I feel. Most of the games I want next year are multiplatform games. In my opinion many of Sony's first party games have been kind of average in my opinion. I'm not talking about Uncharted 2, which is excellent, I'm talking about games like inFamous, Resistance 2, MAG, etc.
Yes, I have played those games and they were ok, but basically I always felt like I wished I was playing something else.

I think PS3-only gamers tend to way underappreciate multiplatform games. Out of all my favorite games this generation a majority of them are multiplatform games.