MGS4 still coming to Xbox 360?
Metal Gear Solid 4 may still come to the Xbox 360 if the latest rumours are to be believed.
A report on XboxFamily states that a Konami distribution representative said that the Xbox 360 version of game is already in production and has been since early 2007.
The game will still lead on the PlayStation 3, but the report claims that the game will follow on the Xbox 360 around 12-to-14 months after the PS3 version is released. Given that the PS3 version is expected to hit sometime during 2008, we can safely assume that if the rumour is true, MGS4 won’t be released on the Xbox 360 until 2009.
XboxFamily went on to contact Microsoft for verification, but the expected—albeit lengthy—“no comment” came back.
There’s no doubting that this was one of the biggest rumours of 2007 and it’s looking like it could be one of the biggest rumours of 2008 as well. That, of course, is mainly because of the countless denials from Konami, Microsoft and Sony.
Last year, Sony claimed that it doesn’t pay for exclusives any more, but we’re not sure whether that is the case any more, as one of Kotaku’s sources suggests that Konami returned money paid to it by Sony to secure the game’s exclusivity for the PS3. On the other hand, another source says that money never exchanged hands and that the exclusivity deal was merely a show of support for the relationship between the two companies.
Of course, the information is anything but concrete, but it’s fair to say that this rumour doesn’t want to die. Do you think this could ever happen? Share your thoughts with us in the forums.
Previous Article
50 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyFact!
BS. Business is business. The MGS franchise is a big one. There is no way they would go exclusive to one console for any amount of time unless there was money involved. They only stand to make more by doing so. Not to mention that there are more Xbox360s out there than PS3s. They would be pretty dumb to make MGS4 exclusive to PS3 without Sony giving them a little green.
Edit: Is it just me, or does that screenshot look pretty terrible? Those textures are shocking! I really hope the game looks better than that, surely the PS3 can use higher texture resolutions than 64x64!
and maybe the reason for using tons of space is so that everything just streams off the disk. for liek zero load times or whatever. if thats why they are using so much space i wouldnt even want to have the game on the 360 as load times would be insane like with a number of 360 games out there.
maybe 1-2 years down the road it could possible go to 360 if M$ pays them enough money like they do to other companies. but it would never be as good as the ps3 version.
Another fan boy hard at work backing his system with nothing but thoughts stated as facts. Kojima already said it would be possible to make this game on the 360, and he likes the way the 360 architecture works better. Also one of the main guys at Konami said the game would have to sell 1 million copies its first day on the market to make back dev costs. Sounds like putting the game to a larger audience would make more sense. The whole thing about the disc size is bogus too. They aren't compressing anything for the PS3 version because they don't have too. Don't get me started on the bs load times. The PS3 has crazy long load times, longer than anything on my 360. Drakes loads are minutes long, but they are disguised with cut scenes. The Blu-Ray drive is slower than a DVD therefore the PS3 gives you the option to install the game because the BRDD slows the system and load times down. It is amazing to me how Valve was able to fit the entire Orange Box on one DVD-9. You Sony fan boys are the worst by far, you know even less about what you say than the 360 fanboys, and what makes it worse is most of those 360 fan boys are kids, not young adults and older individuals like the PS3 ones. If Sony took a crap and told you it was chocolate and that you should eat it, you probably would. And BTW I own both 360 and PS3.
i havent kept up with hgs4 stuff much but it was quite a while ago Kojima said the games would not run well on 360. i THINK he said it would if things were toned down though.
putting it on 360 would also add to dev costs so thats even more to get back.
360 architecture is simpler while ps3s is more complicated and is more efficient if you utilize the 'cores' of the cell.
who's to say it cant sell 1M on day one?? i dont see why not. many people are getting ps3 for this game.
who cares if its not compressed. that better anyway.
whats wrong with using cutscenes for loading? nothing. how do you know its loading the entire time? mass effect used elevator rides (looong ones) for loading. i think it was assassins creed that also had loading in cutscenes.
you sure arent making good arguments..
i havent seen an option to install a game. its automatic isnt it? either way installing some files on the hdd is better. even games that dont still have fast load times. COD4 didnt install on the hdd and load times are very fast.
so wat if orange box fit on dvd-9. they compressed it obviously. they made it for the 360 so they are gonna put it on one disc. its not that big a game.
im sayin if its like 35gb or more (im guessing) it will be hard to put it on a dvd-9 without cutting back on something.
you seem like the fanboy here. i dont care if you have both systems.
anyways i doubt it will go to 360.
did mgs3?? im not even sure.
and if it does it wont be for a long while unless MS pays enough money.
I watched the promo video when it came out a year or two ago, though I can't say I remember much about the graphics. All I meant was the textures in that screenshot are rubbish, which they are, look at the wall behind him, it's blockier than Q2. Whilst you're probably right about MGS4 being the PS3's killer app, it's debateable whether Konami are willing to take that risk. They've been developing the game for years, must have cost them millions and millions, would you just stick to an underselling console in the hope more people would subsequently buy it? I'm not so sure, there's a hell of a lot of doe at risk here. Spending the extra time and cost in producing a 360 port to ensure far more sales (and it would ensure far more sales) seems like a rather business savvy decision.
As for the quality of a 360 port, we could debate it till the cows go home, it all depends on how good Konami are with the various techs. The 360 probably could run it as well as the PS3, after all a development house got Doom 3 to run nearly flawlessly on the old Xbox, and no-one thought it'd be possible (128megs of ram, lol). It all depends on how well the devs get to grips with the hardware and software. I doubt the DVD size will be a problem, a bit of texture compression here and disk swapping there and there wouldn't be much of a difference. Disk swapping isn't a new thing, many many games have done it in the past and I doubt people would be turned off by it now. Also, it's easy to underestimate the power of modern compression technologies, you can shrink things like textures and models by huge amounts without losing much noticable quality. There are full blown proof-of-concept games out there, with high res textures, shading, complex models, the whole lot, for less than 64Kb. Have a Google search for them, it's quite amazing what you can squash if you need to.
I certainly wouldn't call MGS4 a killer app either.
Also, why would Konami bring it to 360 if MGS(2 or 3 can't remember) was a flop on regular Xbox? Just a question I thought I'd ask......
I know they could suredly bring the game to 360, but what I really would want to see is if they could make the game play/look exactly like the PS3 version. Also, if multiple discs will work then why didn't Mass Effect use more than 1 disc? Have any games for 360 come out w/ more than 1 disc?
Squashed again by Konami....again. Jesus how many times does Kojima and Konami have to squash this rumor? People still think FF13 is possible on 360 despite Square's big ONLY FOR PLAYSTATION 3 at the end of their trailer.
but because of the huge disc space i would expect them to use it and instead of making the textures look good frome a distance make the resolution higher in the textures so they look good close up too.
oh ya i forgot motorstorm had long load times. thats the only one i can think of.
i think the part that makes the MGS games so great is not the graphics although they are amazing. (look at Snake Eater. it had some of the best graphics of any game on the last gen consoles.)
its more the gameplay i think. the control system seems so open. you arent all confined in what you can do like in other shooters like Ghost Recon and games like that. check out some of the last videos. they had one just hoswing him go around and do things. it seems very free of how you move around.
First off, read what you just posted.... and read the related articles so you can get a better understanding of what is actually occurring. You ever think that there might be a reason why most of the people you know chose to get a 360 over the PS3?
The load times on Uncharted are long, and part of it is due to blu-ray and the other part of it is due to developer laziness in not using compression because they don't have to.
Honestly the loads on the PS3 are longer in general, and the reviewers (ign egm play etc etc) point this out. The load times shouldn't be any longer than something like Bioshock which looks great. I was actually kinda disappointed at how Drake's looked. With it being a first party game I expected it to knock my socks off like Gears of War did, yet Gears looked better, the shooting part played better, and I had rumble and blood.... and it came out a whole year before.
There are two reasons that MGS2 did not perform well on Xbox, for one a good chunk of people that owned the original Xbox owned a PS2. Another being that those that didn't probably bought into Splinter Cell rather than MGS2. If you combine this with the fact that MGS2 had solid performance on the PS2 and came out like a year before it's Xbox counter-part you could see why sales wouldn't be too great. Also Snake Eater sold very well, and when it was released the 360 was no longer a secret, so why take the time to port a game to a platform that won't be around much longer? It didn't make sense business wise. Heck the Special Editon of the game came out like 2-3 months before the 360 launched.
They really don't need to put games on multiple discs this generation. Next generation you will probably see both consoles using the Next Gen DVD units in box again, but also much larger HDDs like 250gb to possibly 500gbs. I also expect that MS will have some sort of option to boot into a windows type environment, with the PS3 incorporating either linux in the box, or a much more complex and useful web browser. This is speculation of course, but I do know quite a few people in the industry, and knew the 360 specs 6 months before it was even announced. ( Which I totally didn't believe at the time because they were so crazy freaking high!)
I personally really don't like the MGS series, the first 3d one was good, and ground breaking, but they have yet to really evolve the game dynamics to this generation. I am hoping the MGS4 can be like how RE4 was for the Resident Evil series. With a re-tooling of the control and camera systems, many of the problems that I personally had with the 2nd and 3rd titles would be gone. That and if Sony would make a copy cat 360 controller.... that's that only thing I'm really a fan boy about. Both systems have their pros and cons, but I really really prefer the 360 controller over my PS3 one.
And the whole "only on blu-ray" thing is pretty much marketing, they just don't bother with compression and economy in space usage so they end up with a large amount of raw data and then claim it wouldn't fit on any other format - true only so long as they don't try and make it fit ;).
havent seen anything about complaints on load times for ps3 but lots about 360 and i dont look for 360 news.
whyd they choose 360? ps3 wasnt yet and it was going to be 'too expensive' which is BS as any student with a job can afford to buy one. also because LIVE is 'soo much better' than yet quite a few dont even use it unless they have free trial and i hear them complain about problems often too. also for halo 3 which they say isnt even that great.
one of my friends said a whole bunch of his friends had 360s and they all got rid of them because they thought they sucked.
so based on word of mouth of other peoples experiences i wouldn't want a 360 as there are no games i would buy the system for.... oh the one time i played a 360 it gave me DREs every few minutes.
anyways wheres some links about the super long load times on ps3.
and Uncharted has amazing graphics. if it doesnt why do the reviews say it does?
forgot the timeframe if MGS3. it wouldnt make sense to have it on 360. nvm.
ya they do deny alot when it will happen but we wont know for quite a while. but as i said IF it comes to 360 it wont for atleast a year later.
dang i should have waited till morning to post this on our computer instead of using my ps3 controller. i need a good keyboard for this thing.
If the word of mouth is so bad for the 360, how does it continually manage to outsell the PS3, even though it is older, and does not offer the next gen playback capability? There may not be games available that you personally don't want to play, or choose to ignore because you don't own one, but if you look at this years game of the year awards, 360 cleaned house.
Sony admitted load times on cross platform games will be slower read here: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/
Uncharted has good graphics, amazing would make them better than anything out there, which they aren't. I am personally more impressed with the character animations, than with the overall graphics. The game also has a ton of scanning and tearing to it, which is a first for me on consoles.
Lastly, they have to deny it, they are under contract and can't say anything legally, and from a business aspect it wouldn't be smart to announced 3-6 months after launch to keep sales up. This is similar to how GTA4 is already done for 360, and was submitted for rating already, but the PS3 version is still in development. Rockstar can't and won't say anything because Sony has paid for a simultanious release, and it would piss of potential 360 buyers that they aren't selling them the game.
You truly are a fanboy if you claim that flat out one system sucks. That just is not the case. Both systems offer two completely different experiences, one more oriented towards games, the other more towards media and corporate pushing. If Sony would stop trying to push out proprietary tech through there consoles, they could possibly be beating the 360 right now.
Problem with your TV perhaps mine plays Uncharted fine with no tearing visible in over 16 hours of play.
Blu-Ray and Cell. Rather than using parts that were readily available Sony made a bad business choice and they and their consumers have been paying for it ever since. Cell drove costs up due to low yields, combined with the fact that it is harder to program for. Blu-Ray drove up costs and was responsible for the delay of the launch. Although I like the fact that my PS3 can play Blu-Ray movies, I know most people either don't care or don't even know about it, Sony's own research shows this. Blu-Ray has little advantage when it comes to gaming ATM, next-gen it will be a must, but right now it is just a nice bonus for devs, but does not outweigh the difficulty of working on the cell platform. Even after all the hardware problems that the 360 has had it still continues to sell more than the PS3 and that in my mind says a lot.
I doubt it's the tv, every other game, including other PS3 titles works fine.
Considering the Cell was co-developed along with Sony and Toshiba it is primarily IBM's baby.
http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/cell_systems.html
Straight from the horses mouth. The Cell is doing alot more than just making you hate the PS3 because Sony decided to use something they co-researched with Toshiba.
And Blu-Ray is far from Sony's proprietary format. There is a reason a Blu-Ray Association exists. Because Pionere, Samsung, and other companies co-developed the format with Sony as probably one the larger contributers, but hardly the sole owner. Also I believe it has been shown that the Playstation 3 on a world wide scale is starting to pass the Xbox 360 in sales (not total to-date, just weekly/monthly). The Xbox now sells very strongly in North America only. (Correct me if am wrong I do not have access to NPD, or other number crunching sites on this).
You are wrong about the PS3 surpassing 360 sales worldwide, you have to remember that the US is one of the largest consumers of the product. Blu-Ray is Sony's baby, they had the idea first they were the largest contributor, and they also have the disc plants. Right now the 360 has a 7 million unit lead over the PS3. Plus PS3 does not have good attach rates, which means they are losing money selling the console and are not recovering it with game sales, that is not a good business platform. So maybe marketing it as a cheap blu-ray player wasn't really a smart idea.....
You are only proving my point when you say that other people are trying to use cell. Sony, rather than using off the shelf parts, tried to make something new, and used the PS3 platform as a test subject. Same thing with Blu-Ray. Only Blu-Ray isn't as big of a problem as Cell is.
Let's take a look at COD4. IW had to take their best programmers, and hire more in order to make the PS3 version on par with the 360; using more money to make a game that will sell less units really isn't a smart move which is why you see a lot of crappy or delayed PS3 ports. UT3, well Gears of War uses the same engine and looks and runs great on the 360, so when UT3 is released on the 360 it should be the same, except it will actually sell. Take a look at the sales numbers for UT3 for the PS3.... they are piss poor. They didn't even make it into the top 50 http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php
Life span doesn't matter, because gamers buy the latest and greatest, and the real money is made off them. The people that actually buy lots of titles over the lifespan, not the ones that have 5 games and buy the system 3 years after it is released.
Movie usage : DVDs! The Xbox and 360 both play DVDs, most people still buy just DVDs and the next-gen formats are still both not selling huge numbers. Transformers the highest selling next gen dvd to date sold 1% of the overall sales. Although I have both players, I know that this war will be a stalemate and a true successor will emerge via a download service or holographic discs (store way more than both formats).
Apparently you aren't aware of the many AAA titles that are still in the oven for the 360. Ever heard of Ninja Gaiden 2? Too Human? Lost Odyssey? Alan Wake? And I can promise you that MGS4 will see yet another delay before it is released, either that or they cut out parts that aren't working and re-release it later as a special edition like they did with snake eater.
And we still don't have rumble..... I can't believe I am going to need to buy another controller because Sony wasn't smart enough to settle.
The people I know are using it as a DVD upscaler (which I think 360 can do as well, but only up to 1080i) and also for BR movies, so I'm lost on your DVD-only mentality and secondly as more people learn about it and prices drop HD movies will become big and then justification for having it in the PS3 will become apparent. As with any console, manufacturers must learn/foretell what "the next big technology" will be on down the road so that they can futureproof the console upfront giving it a solid standard which again is why I believe they made the right decision in taking a chance with BR (not just for the movies, but also game storage as well) and for adding the HDD.
Dude, why are naming off AAA titles for the 360. That's not in the scope of our discussion. It's about the PS3. I just feel that the games I named off will make the PS3 seem worth buying to many people because those are going to be some big games.
Also, are you willing to place a bet that MGS4 is going to get delayed again?
Lastly, Sony wasn't the only one getting sued you know (read Brett's column)....and secondly Rumble is NOT that big of a deal....it's a luxury.....if it's THAT big of a deal then just buy one on ebay.....you should've known that when you bought the console, too.....but I do agree with you...it would've been nice....and it sucks that you will have to buy a new controller...
I do agree with you though when you say both consoles have their own benefits......that I can agree on....
Why did I buy a PS3? Well Liar and Heavenly Sword seemed to be good, one turned out to be good, but way too short, the other turned out to be crap, they dropped the price 100 dollars, I recently broke up with my gf of 3 years, I also wanted a cheap blu-ray player, but I thought I would be using it more as a gaming machine first. Right now I mainly use it for playing media, the sound out of it is really good, one thing it has over the 360 that also goes over towards gaming.
The reason I listed those titles is because you said that the 360 had already fired off its AAA titles, when it still has a good deal coming out this year. Oh yeah SC Conviction
I will say that MGS4 will boost sales a bit, but none of the others probably will. Haze is a timed exclusive, Gran Turismo would need to be better than Forza 2 which is now reigning champ of racers, Devil May Cry is a hard core players game, and thus a person that wants it will already own the console. Things like Madden, Halo, Guitar Hero, GTA sell titles because they reach not only the hard core gamers, but the casual ones as well. MGS4 will bring people that have been waiting to buy a PS3, but honestly don't see it making people that didn't already want a PS3 want one. And I really don't like Second Life...erm I mean Home. LOL, really though it is a little late to try and add achievements and build a community don't you think.
Again maybe your friends are using it as a blu-ray, but like I said the attach rate for HD-DVDs is really low, and will continue to stay that way until 1080p players are in the 200 dollar and below, and discs are 20 dollars and less week one. DVDs still look good, and only few movies are really worthy and worth watching in HD anyway (like Transformers and Casino Royale) really do you need to watch Wedding Crashers in HD?
Yes I knew that the controller would not rumble, but without ever playing the a game like uncharted, where rumble would have a much added value, it is hard to imagine how much it is missed. And the controller still needs a redisgn. All they need to do is put the left analog where the D-Pad is.......
And just because I can point out flaws on the PS3 doesn't mean I hate it entirely, although I don't like the fact that it was more expensive then my elite, and didn't come with an HDMI cable out of the box.
Here's the thing Halo 3 is the biggest game ever as far as hype and marketing, yet it only brought like an extra 700k in system sales in the US. A few of those are definitely people that already had 360s and wanted the halo version too. So even if Sony sold an extra 1 million due to MGS4 being the OMFG goodness that it could be, they still would be lagging behind. IMHO things like having Madden running better and 1st on next gen, Fight Night Round 3, and Ghost Recon AW are what gave MS the big push, because those games are ones that everyone can get behind. If Sony were really smart they would bring out something like Final Fantasy ASAP. They have waited too long to bring out the big franchise guns, and it is killing them. Not securing the exclusivity to GTA4 will IMHO be the stake in the heart that puts Sony in 3rd place for this gen. I expect M$ to drop the 360 in price again right before GTA4, in order to coax the remaining casual market that does not want a wii, or already has one and is looking for a real gaming machine towards 360. Say what you want about XBL, but it is smoother and more fluid the PSN, and 50 dollars a year is nothing really, especially when I can play any 360 game online still, no matter how old, or how few units it sold. Really though the PS3 doesn't offer enough more than the 360, not for most people.
And about Home; Doesn't it seem like it is going to really complicate doing simple **** like looking at your achiev... I mean trophies. You have to walk around this whole world to do it, and let's Home is out when MGS4 is out, and every body is on Home chatting about how great MGS4 is, that's a ton of people taxing the system all at once, I have trouble believing that a free system is not going to get bogged down like crazy with a ton of people on it. XBL ran fine night one of halo 3, and I was amazed because there was like literally a million people playing. Either Sony is going to take a major hit financially, or it's not going to be very smooth (hence all the delays).
Halo 3 online matchmaking sucks...Sucks....you can't even find someone right now because the servers are so f*cked up so the best-selling game right now for 360 is pretty much unplayable...and even when it's running it takes minutes to start a match....but yeah day 1 was great, but that was a good while ago....
To say XBL is smoother/more fluid is being just like talledaga and saying something as fact when it's only opinion and can't be proven and having played both systems online I can sure as hell tell you that IMO you are wrong...period
Also, XBL has been pretty much down for 11 days...11 days......and it's something that you are paying for.....sounds like you really don't care.....and I guess the only thing you care about is achievements which you can only see in a contextual format and that it'll still be worth paying $50/year even after Home comes out and blows XBL out of the water in terms of what it can offer PS3 owners for free.....
Final Fantasy is a money-maker and always will be.....so just because it's coming out later than you expected/wanted doesn't mean it won't sell just as good or help out PS3 sales.....
As for MGS4 selling 1 million copies on the 1st day....is that in the US? or the world? If the world, then how many people live in Japan...how many of those people own a PS3 and how many of those people do you think are going to buy a PS3 to get their hands on this game? Secondly, why judge it on Day 1....why not week 1...either way you see my point....Japan alone is huge.....not considering the North America/Europe
Lastly, Halo 3 was/is over-rated and because it didn't really bring anything innovative in terms of gameplay to the table people really didn't care.....especially when you add COD4 to the mix.....
Lastly, this is why I think a purchase for a BC PS3: you can sell your old PS2 and get money back (my friend sold his for $50 on ebay) and then you can sell the BR movies if they really don't matter (friend sold his for around $35)....of course this was a good 3 months ago but still...that's another $85 you could almost put towards the cost.....now with his regular Xbox he wouldn't have gotten crap for it....secondly he would've had to sell like 80% of his games along w/ it, but because he didn't want to sell it for that cheap he kept it and so he spent $350 on a 20GB HDMI SKU 360 when it came out and then he had to spend another $50 for XBL....again when you really get down to it both consoles are affordable...360 is more game-only mentality IMO and the PS3 is slightly more sophisticated in specs but also w/ media as another major focus.....
alright enough ranting...I just want to hear what you think of my logic on both sysytems....getting some sleep
about LIVE.. well the average person wont want to pay for online and only use the free trials.
i dont think HOME will help sales of PS3 though. some games will like MGS4, GTA4, Haze, SOCOM: Confrontation, DMC4 and FF. other average games dont affect sales much. they will have the system already or buy what friends tell them to buy.
UT3 sold bad as there was like no advertising for it. i knew about the game but had no clue it came out. i all of a sudden saw threads about UT3 and im like 'WTF?? its out?' and i keep up with ps3 news so most people wont know about it.
is GTA4 for 360 really done? i really doubt it. Sony paid so it wouldnt release on 360 first?? thought that was a rumor like MS payed them to not release the same DLC content on PS3.
that link on load times is from 2006. the BD drive is slower but dont mean load times are slower as the huge space can be used to help that along with the hdd. thats a good thing about the ps3 not a bad thing. but i havent reviews saying load times are long in games. execpt probly motorstorm as it does.
GT5 will sell the system. GT4 sold more or very close to Halo 2. i think it sold in a certain timeframe but not overall. or may it was more than GTA.SA. you get my point.
actually ps3 does seem to be selling more worldwide than 360. go to www.vgchartz.com it has weekly sales on main page. 50K more in Japan. 45K less in NA. 104K more in 'Others'
Worldwide, means the entire world, and since the US buys more systems, if you control US sales and do well in the other nations, you have the most WORLDWIDE sales.
If the average person won't pay for online play, how come more than half of 360 owners do? And how the hell does WoW have so many users?
GTA4 has been submitted to the ratings board for the 360 version, this means that they are pretty much done, as any new content added would require a re-submission. Also, Sony has sent their "expert" programmers over to assist Rockstar with the problems they have been having getting the PS3 version to run. Yes M$ paid for exclusive content, Sony paid to have Take Two hold off on the 360 version until the PS3 version was done, very smart on Sony's part.
The load times are longer period, Sony said so, why would they lie, and why does it matter that is from 06? The consoles specs have yet to change... Also PS3 versions of games continue to be worse than their 360 counterparts, until this changes I have trouble believing that everyone is going to jump ship to PS3. The more bad press that is generated, the less likely people are to want the system, look at the sales slump from the summer when 360 had all those RRoD consoles.
Gran Turismo 4 sold the worst of the series, considering it had a larger market than 1 and barely sold more. You can't really count 3s numbers either because it was bundled. The following of the series had dropped off, and with less audience to buy, it's numbers will most likely be the lowest of the series. It may sell units in Japan, but in the States and Europe it won't do much. Sony would be smart to use it as a bundled game, then it could help system sales.
First off I don't underestimate the market, Sony's own research shows that less than half of its users use an HDTV, and even less that 40% know it has a freaking blu-ray drive! Nobody cares about linux really, how many people have actually used it, and it is limited as hell too. I thought about doing it, but it just isn't worth it unless you want to use pirated games and what not. You can bitch all you want about having to pay the mere 13 cents a day for live, but it is better than using a website, because that is exactly what PSN is at the moment. Only a fanboy would say that PSN is better, regardless of price, even IGNs PS3 staffers complain about it. And if live is down completely how come I was able to play halo 3 co-op for over 90 minutes 3 days ago? It's really not an opinion to say the XBL runs smoother, it's not a web-page, it's integrated and it loads up faster and has more options available quicker. You really are the only person I have ever heard argue that PSN is better. I've heard the yah but it's free, but never it's actually a better network. Yah and the achievements are cool, why do you think Sony is copying it?
And if you want to talk price, let's see. I get a holiday bundle 360, it comes with two games, and Component Cables in the box, as well as a headset if I choose to go online. Price 350. Now I buy a PS3, it has no component cables, so I need to buy those, also if I want rumble I will need to get a new controller, and if I wait like 3 months they will send me 5 movies! I still need to buy a game too. But hey the give you Spiderman 3, which was really good ;) So I spent 400 dollars, I still need to pay the 30-40 to get component cables or HDMI so I can actually play my games in HD, and I need a game +60. So I'm out 500, and if I get rumble which I will cause I want it, add another 40 dollars. Sure I can play online for free, but I will need to buy a bluetooth headset to talk to people.... Really is the PS3 cheaper, no, not really.
Lucidity, I never said PSN was better. That is utter BS on your part. All I was saying was that I have never experienced this "inferiority" that you keep expressing w/ the PSN and what does it not offer that XBL does that would justify paying $50/yr for it? In 6 years (considering that's about how long the console's lifespan will probably last) you would have spent $300 for something that only offers a little bit more than something that is being offered for free. Also, achievements aside, what are you comparing the two with? Up-time? Lag in-game? Matchmaking times? features? what? I mean what makes the PSN so inferior to XBL? is really what I'm getting at...
Secondly, those surveys people take when they sign up for the PSN should NOT be taken as concrete. My friend just breezed through it because he could give a rat's ass about it, same w/ my cousin, same w/ my gf's brother. Research is a tough thing to take concrete especially when can't take half of the information to be true and you don't know if the peole are even taking it seriously......
If you think Linux is "limited" in what it can offer then you might as well say that Windows doesn't offer that much and that it's limited too because I can do pretty much ANYTHING on Ubuntu that I can w/ Windows....honestly you have no idea what you're talking about.....Web browsing, ROM emulators, Mulitmedia capabilities, it's a freaking PC man.....and it's absolutely FREE...what's so "limited" about that? Anything that I do on my normal PC I can do on the PS3 w/ Ubuntu....I'm so confused on your logic.....
Sony is "copying" achievements? Dude, you might as well say Sony's copying XBL w/ their PSN and that it shouldn't be there because MS beat them to the punch. Or why don't you say that Sony copied rumble from N64, but then that would mean MS copied rumble as well....dude that is a retarded thing to say...it's something that should be open for any console manufacturer to implement.....secondly the achievement system isn't context-only based like it is w/ 360....the achievements are actual tropies along w/ the fact that you can save replays show-casing how you obtained the trophies...now that must suredly be copying as well right?
Who says you will have to spend $60 on a game. Go to Gamestop and get a used one or go online to cheapassgamer.com, seriously I thought you were smarter than that Lucidity....who spends that kinda money on games...I sure as hell don't and neither do the people I know....my friend grabbed Assassin's Creed & COD4 on PS3 for $37.99 a piece at Circuit City when they had that sale after Xmas.....
I don't think you really read my post regarding the scenario for my friend getting his 60GB, but either way let's do the math re: my friend's scenario:
60GB PS3 = $500 & HDMI cable = $15 (didn't want to use component) Comes to...........$515
Sells his PS2 + controller for $50 on ebay
Sold his extra 2 PS2 controllers to a friend for $25
Sold his BR movies for $35 on ebay as well
He buys his games for $40 or less. When he got it he bought Motorstorm online for $30 and Oblivion for $25 from somebody on craigslist....
Of course he's probably smarter than most people when finding games for cheap, but still anyone can find a good deal somewhere.....
Now, in reality, he spent $460 on everything.
20GB HDMI 360 + Forza + Marvel UA = $350
HDMI cable = $15 (didn't want to use component)
XBL Gold account = $50
Wireless Adaptor = $90 on newegg (he didn't want to buy a used one)
He couldn't sell his Xbox because he was only offered $35 for it ($35!) and secondly he didn't want to sell his games, but 80% of his games wouldn't work w/ the 360 so....sh*t outta luck and no extra money to put towards the 360....
Total comes to......$505
Considering the rumble controller can be bought for $60 right now on ebay that would put the PS3 at $520, but if he sold his old controller that would put him at around the same price he spent on his 360. This is not an unrealistic way of thinking. This is something that he along w/ the other people I know do, so.....
My friend bought warhawk for $40 brand new and got Jabra headset w/ it so....I guess that could be an added expense, but it also came w/ the game so idk how you would label that, but if he didn't get it w/ the game he could grab one right now for $20 on ebay, brining the PS3 to around $25 more than his 360.....
Now that you see the numbers, is the PS3 THAT much more expensive? (atleast in my friend's scenario)
you think the people playing WoW are 'average' people. some maybe but people that are paying to play that are hardcore gamers.
as i said many people use free trials from games to play XBL.
what are those sales that are listed? WORLDFRICKINWIDE!! those are WORLDWIDE weekly sales in which PS3 beat out 360 by over 100K. you make 0 sense in saying that because 360 sells more in US means it has more worldwide sales. WTF is that supposed to mean? if PS3 is outselling in other coutries and makes up for its losses in the US then its selling more. what dont you understand about that? the gap between 360 and PS3 has recently been SLOWLY closing. and i think it will eventually get even. PS2 is still selling like crazy. it hasnt died yet. many gamers still havent bought into the new systems. xbox is basically dead. so the gamers with last gen systems are playin ps2. when they get a new system its highly likely they will stick with Sony and get PS3.
load times CAN be longer unless the devs utilize the extra space of blu ray and the hdd to possibly completely get rid of load times. i asked for reviews of games that complain about ps3's long load times. not people saying based on the hardware it will load slower. dont post about motorstorm as it obviously does but i havent seen any others. COD4 loads extremly fast, along with Skate, Warhawk, and GH3. you are just saying based on hardware it SHOULD be slower but in reality with blu ray and hdd it isnt.
ps3 continue to be worse? COD4 isnt worse. its in 600p on 360. not on ps3 as thats impossible on ps3. i havent seen anything about cod4 being worse. if anything there is a little extra detail.
skate?? havent read about it being worse on ps3. i see nothign wrong with it.
any ea sports games?? of course its worse on ps3 as they are lazy retards. its that they are too lazy to work on it to find a way to get them to run better. and im sure it wouldnt be too hard as others have done it.
just looked it up GT4 sold 9.52 million copies. over 1 million more than Halo 2. so how will it not affect PS3 sales. it will by quite a bit.
anyways with PSN and XBL there really arent any features on XBL that PSN doesnt have that makes me want XBL at all. the feature XBL has that PSN doesnt are not worth $50/year. one thing PSN needs to get and then it will have the only thing XBL has that i want is to be able to go into the XMB and go in the friends list and send messages. otherwise to me it dont make a difference.
but either way both of them have gone the wrong way in making an online service. what they both need to do is look at the possible best online interface of any console game which is the Socom series. that online interface and everything which was for PS2 was and still is the best online setup i have used. i hate this stupid matchmaking garbage. ya its nice to be able to quickly get into a game but i want to be able to make my own room and then have people join it. it had voice chat in lobbies (not garbage open mic) and text messaging. you could message someone at anytime. even in game if you had a keyboard. something would need to be upgraded of course to be a little newer but i feel that is the perfect online setup.
many people love acheivement but really it doesnt matter to me. sure if PSN gets things like that it will be neat but if it doesnt i wont care one bit.
also HDMI and component cables can be bought for like $10 for high quality ones ( www.monoprice.com )
rumble dont matter to me. i played socom all the time on ps2 which is a game that uses rumble alot. anyways the rumble got broken in my controller and i never noticed it. i used a different controller and the rumble worked and it pissed me off. i hated it. so i turned it off. so gaming without rumble dont matter to me and alot of other people. :)
So where to start.....
The inferior online service, well first it doesn't navigate as well, it loads slower, it has less content, a lot of games don't use it, is customer service available 24/7 365? I doubt it, I can't play any game I want, only if the devs still pay to host, I can't report hackers, racists, and can't choose to avoid them and never play with them ever again. I would understand how you don't see it as inferior because you don't actually own both systems and use them on a daily basis. I will gladly pay that 300 dollars so I don't have to play with some of the douches you find online ever again. That and the fact that it takes the burden of the devs and publishers, so they can focus on making online play awesome, rather than affordable. My only gripe on XBL is that there is no account offered that will allow you unlimited downloads, or that you don't get a certain ammount of M$ points with a gold subscription.
Sorry devil, can't really give you any credit on your side of the argument about pricing. First were talking average consumer, buying at retail locales. Not I bought this off some guy, and I got this really great deal one week of the year. Also, if your buddy is so great at finding deals and using ebay and the internet, he should of known that for quite a while Llama.com was buying Xbox consoles, that weren't even working for like 50-60 bucks depending on what was wrong. I sold mine to them, plus the accessories and games. But let's take the debate back to the real world where most consumers pay retail price.
I have never seen an HDMI cable for 15 dollars in a store, even online you have to actually look to get a good deal on one. Plus when you buy a console and get home and want to play right away, do you want to wait on an HDMI cable to show up at your door before you can even game in HD? The PS3 is marketed as the OMFG ULTIMATE HD MACHINE, yet doesn't include a cable that you sourced at 15 bucks. LAME, bottom line.
Second, the 360 currently comes with 2 games, and has limited backwards compatibility. Of the games I owned only 1 did not offer BC, so unless your buddy was big into sports, or just obscure games that didn't really sell, then they were supported.
Why sell the movies? If you sell the movies, then you are discounting the fact that there is a blu-ray player in the machine, and thus making a statement that you paid extra for something that has no real value to you.
Wi-Fi.... don't get me started, hard wiring is sooo much better I wouldn't bother hooking my console to wireless. But since you chose to go there http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-Wireless-Network-Adapter-MN740/dp/B00005QBX9/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1199594953&sr=8-2
50 bucks, not 90, and if you really want to get into it you can just get another way point and hard wire it from there which is even cheaper.
Also you fail to account for paypal fees, time spent putting it up on ebay, the cost of the listing, the cost of shipping, and all the general bullshit that comes with ebay; Like the fact that it is an auction site, meaning one guy can sell a ps2 for 60, while another may only get 30 or less. And the delay before the funds are actually available.
Your friends scenario is just that, your friends, most people have lives and don't have the time or patience to deal with getting everything through cl or ebay, this is why brick and mortars are still around and always will be.
How about my friend's story about how costco sent him a 360 when he ordered an extra 360 controller, that means he got a 360 for 45 dollars! Surely I should set this as my example, so if you look at it, getting a PS3 is way expensive.......:D Seriously if you want to debate at least remain somewhat in the realm of science.
When did I complain about spending 60 dollars on a game? I pointed out that the current PS3 sku lacks a game in the box.
Both Units have a place in the market, but as far as gaming goes the 360 has the right focus. The PS3 is a jack of all trades master of none. And yes the linux is limited, you can't do anything graphically taxing. I can play roms and web browse on my cell phone, so wow my ps3 can do what my cell phone can..... big yay! This is not really a big sell factor, unless you plan on pirating games. I will give my PS3 props on reading SACDs but the 40gb can't do that. Also, why include the card reader, it really is a waste. Sony tried to make it do to much **** besides play games. You say that makes it a value, I say this is why you have crappy ports, long dev times, and a no HD CABLE INCLUDED! Really the no cable thing pisses me off. Oh what's that you say? You want to play games in HD on your new PS3? FORK OVER EVEN MORE MONEY FOR IT! HAH, we at Sony preach about how PS3 is the HD MACHINE, yet it can't do HD out of the box....
Sorry I'm jumping everywhere just trying to touch base on everything you brought up. Blu-Ray is not added value, because you have to actually buy Blu-Ray movies, which are more expensive then their DVD counter parts. The PS2 had added value as a DVD player because it was introduced when everybody just started buying dvds and players, when dvd sales were surpassing the previous format, and it also did not have a competing format against it. Also we still don't know how the format war is going to pan out, HD-DVD did better sales over the holiday, but now Warners is trying to go Blu-Ray exclusive (after being offered a rumored 500mil) but they have contracts with Toshiba that they might be breaching.... Really the format war does nothing but screw consumers no matter how you look at it.
Talladega
WoW has a ton of users, and yes most of them are normal people, for some that is the only game they even play. It's one of those kinda games that people don't tire of so when they try it out, they don't stop playing.
Take a look at the sales chart http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=®1=All&cons2=PS3®2=All&cons3=X360®3=All&start=39082&end=39446&weekly=1 at which point do you see the PS3 catching up? They are running parallel lines almost, and since the 360 has the lead, it will continue to lead.
You do realize that the example you used is one week, one week is not a trend, and trend is months. I don't see what you see, because I am looking through the eyes of someone that actually has an education in trends and marketing and cares about these things. You actually hinted on something that I was trying to get you to see. In comparison to the PS2, the PS3 is a huge failure. Last gen Xbox only managed like 28 million total worldwide sales, 360 could see those numbers by next holiday. PS2 is still selling and already has over 125 million units sold. A lot of those came when it dropped to the 200 dollar price. Price and selection is everything, the Wii has that, and next is the 360. Even if the 360 sold 0 units this year, PS3 would still need to sell 7 million more units before it would catch the 360. Fortunately overall sales doesn't result in crappy first party titles, then this would actually concern you as a PS3 only fan. Instead of taking it out on the boards, and hoping for the PS3 to pass 360 in sales, you should be writing Sony and telling them how they messed up, and how they should fix it. Tell them you want them to make a system that is dev friendly not multiple business platform friendly. Tell them to listen to the people that are actually on the boards, advertising, and fighting for them. If anything I would be pissed at Sony not the developers. Why should a developer have to work harder for a smaller audience and less payout? They shouldn't, and won't so don't blame them. While your at it thank Infinity Ward for putting in all the extra time and money to make the PS3 version of COD4 as good as the 360 one.
I'm not sure what 600p is, please inform me. I think you mean 60fps, I used COD4 as one of the examples where the port was as good, but like I said they had to work extra to make the PS3 version as good as the 360, and which one sold better? The one that had the cheaper, non expert programmers, aka the 360 version.
Since you haven't done your research I will name off ports that have problems on PS3; AC, Orange Box, Rock Band, Madden, Lost Planet, then you have to account for delays because really games that are faulty shouldn't ship so almost every game before the holiday that was cross platform was delayed for PS3 things like Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, R6 Vegas, FEAR, Stranglehold etc etc
Please inform me how many consoles were in circulation when GT4 was released? Probably over 90million so thats 1/10th attach rate. If the same goes for GT5 and PS3 has 10million units that means 1 million overall sales. And a 1/10th attach rate for a video game is something to be happy about, seriously. Halo 3 is a monster at like 1/3rd attach rate.
If rumble is not important then why did Sony spend millions to get it back?
I get that certain things don't matter to you, but I am trying to approach things from a sales, marketing, and demographics standpoint. I am generalizing things to fit the majority of the market. Large selections of games push consoles, and no matter how many the PS3 gets, the 360 will get as well, this is why PS2 was king last time, and why 360 will be 1st this gen (sorry you can't really pull Wii into this, it's a console with a different market and all)
most all EA Sports ports are horrible. AC? the same glitches are in 360. the PS3 version of Orange Box was made by a totally different dev team (some EA team) and was basically an afterthought.
look at the numbers not a graph for comparing sales. i didnt say a trend. i said slowly its caught up a little and actually pretty good in the holidays.
if only attach rate matters (only if it benefits 360 probly) then COD4 on PS3 has sold about the same COD4 on 360.
high attach rate for halo 3 because lots of people who bought the system bought it for halo 3.
wifi is a very important thing to many people. not everyone can run cables throughout there house. wifi is beginning to be used alot more. on the PS boards there was a poll that if they used wired or wifi on ps3 and like 65%about i think said wifi.
look at sales of the first year for ps2. ps3 is doing just fine. in its first 12 months it sold about the same as 360 in its first 12 months.
most WoW players are not casual gamers.
how does psn load slow? it doesnt. poor navigation? the XMB is a totally amazing interface to use. works just fine to me.
we could nitpick at the other systems but it wont change each others opinions. neither will stating opinions as though thats how everyone feels. i am totally happy with my ps3 and all the people i know with one are too and i hear like no complaints yet i hear alot about 360. so whatever. if 360 continues to stay in the lead by like 8M i dont care. i know PS3 wont fail and will continue to improve and give me quality games for a long time.
lol! huuuuuge posts. lol
COD4 was made in 600p for PS3 as well, so I'm not sure where exactly you are going with that.
I've never heard of AC locking up and causing a 360 to freeze, also if you look at the game side by side, it looks better on 360 but just barely.
If you only play one game, you're not really a gamer. So that would make a lot of WoW users casual.
The poor nav is in the PSN and PS Store not XMB itself, XMB is quite similar in the way that the original and current xbox operate as well. Although I do prefer the 360 setup there is no real problem with how the xmb looks and functions.
It's not only attach rates that matter, but they are an indicator of how well the game is generally liked. And even with similar attach rates, 360 sold double what PS3 did on COD4, which is important because the game industry is at the core a business, and companies want to make money. They made more money with the 360 users, so it would make sense that they ensure to make the best game possible for 360, and then worry about the PS3 version. That's just smart business. Take care of the customers that spend the most money with you, and do your best to help the others.
I can't really explain why Halo 3 has such a high attach rate. It's not the best game in the world, the multiplayer is a blast though. IMHO Bioshock was the best game to come out this year, which sold remarkably well considering the nature of the game, but I can't quite put my finger on why Halo 3 is selling as well as it has. If I had to say one thing, it would probably be herding nature, and because everyone thinks everyone is playing it, or will be, everyone bought it. Either that or Oprah endorsed it.
It's not that EA makes shitty ports, it's that they are a business, and in order to make profits they are not willing to spend the extra money and time it takes to make the PS3 version on par with the 360 version. You either take a gimped version of the game, or you don't take it at all. EA or any dev/publishing company cannot be held accountable for Sony choosing hardware that is difficult to program for. I'm not saying coding for the 3 cores of the 360 is easy, but it is easier then the 7 active cores of the Cell. The wii is crazy easy to make games for, that's why so many things come out for it, granted a lot of them are crap, but a lot of companies are experimenting new ways to approach games in general and are able to do so without taking a huge financial risk because the Wii is cheaper to make games for, and it has the largest market.
Again most of my gripes are not with the Playstation brand, it was a better brand than it is now. Sony has really screwed up big time, and lost what the PS brand is supposed to be about; gaming. If they would of approached the Playstation as a gaming machine, they would not have chosen to use Cell, because they would of foreseen the difficulties of programming for it. Blu-Ray could go either way, I still do not see it as a necessity for a gaming machine, and if they would of chosen to go without it, the console would have been priced the same as 360. They would also be in better standing financially because right now Sony is still losing big bucks on every PS3 sold, and with the lowest attach rate ATM they are the slowest to make it back. I really have a hard time believing that Sony was thinking in the best interest of the consumer when they chose to put in Blu-Ray and Cell.
Edit: Also there was a reason that Valve did not make the PS3 version of Orange Box, because Gabe Newell thinks the PS3 is a crap platform to program for. He has been very outspoken about how he doesn't care for it at all.
if you going by attach rate COD4 sold just as well on PS3 as it did on COD4. and it is not a game that will make a person choose one system over the other as they are basically the same on each system. so with that you pretty much need to go by attach rates.
maybe the CELL wasnt the best to choose for developing for but i think in the long run the companies that spend the money working with it will benefit the most from it as even though in the short run it doesnt seem better as time goes by and the devs get the hang of it, it will be able to be used much more effeciently and it wont be that the 360 versions are better.
the PS2 had the emotion engine. very slow (133mhz i think) and no video card. xbox was way more powerful but for the first few years any multiplatform game was first on ps2 then xbox. but in the last few years it changed and they were made on xbox first. i guess it was because they took advantage of the xbox' hardware. its not the exact same type of scenario but still. devs complained alot of the EE in the PS2 and how it was hard to develop for. but look at the amazing games they got out of it. Socom was i think the first game to ever use a headset for voice chat online. Socom 2 set records for most people playing an online console game (probly broken now) as it had consistently 30k people on a night 2 yeas after release. and way more than that when it first came out.
actually it is that EA makes horrible ports. because they do. if they make bad ports, they make bad ports. if they made better ports they wouldnt get bad reviews and would sell more.
Halo sells so much as that is the main game everyone buys Xbox's for. thats what made the first xbox sell. and many people like it and so they bought 360 for Halo 3. and i think though that could be a problem as that is the thing that people think of when they think of xbox.
oooops. i gotta go to school. post more later. :)
with Blu-Ray i dont think it was a bad decision to use. the only negative impact was the price. and for what it all can do the price was totally fine with me. if anything Blu-Ray is good as you can store more stuff on it for games with lots of in-game HD movie thingys. no need to skimp on quality then. and loading times can be reduced by putting some data on the disc multiple times.
COD4 is 600p on both http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/22/call-of-duty-4-not-hd-only-600p-claim-pixel-counters/2 I'm not sure where you are getting your info that that res is not supported and that the PS3 doesn't upscale....
Load times are limited to hardware, and if it reads at 2x at one point on the disc it will read at 2x for the whole thing, seek time can be limited but that is just a few seconds. The only way to make up for the drive being slow is to install parts of the game. I get the whole we've got more space with blu-ray idea, but whether it is actually needed is another thing. I don't think you are seeing the entire picture I am trying to paint for you, so let me try to reduce it for you. Regardless of whether blu-ray is great to have and really allows the system to perform better; If Blu-Ray was not included, the PS3 launches 4 months earlier, at a much lower cost, and more could be made for launch. If Cell is not used, price is also reduced, and games can be made quicker. More games at launch in combination with a lower cost, and more consoles means more sales. More sales means a larger potential market, meaning Sony doesn't lose all of the exclusives it did, and has more games made at a higher quality. More competition between Sony and Microsoft creates a huge price war, resulting in better deals for consumers, and better content as both sides want to win and the numbers are closer. The PS3 may be a better long term console, but really do I care that my PS3 is still getting games 6 years down the road, when a newer, better console will be available from Microsoft? No I really don't, and most of the people that buy consoles (the core market of 18-34 year old males) will want the latest and greatest as long as they can afford it. And in reality the PS2's longevity has hurt PS3 sales, as games like Madden and Guitar Hero 3 still come out for it, giving in-between gamers no reason to upgrade to PS3 yet.
And I still don't understand how you can blame EA for trying to run a business. If every dev took the time to make the PS3 versions run smoothly like their 360 counterparts they would be in the red on the PS3 versions, and in return they may decide not to make them anymore. The cell makes things take much longer to do, and much much longer if you want them to look great doing it, and for this reason, you the end consumer, get screwed over.
disc read speed is not the same for the whole disc if i read correct. the center of the disc is a smaller way around than the outer edge. it spins at a certain speed the whole time which averages 2x. the data that is closest to the center will be read fastest.
just like burning a dvd. data closest to center takes shorter and data closest to outside edge is slowest.
but yes installing parts on hdd helps alot and its a good thing sony included the hdd as a standard.
as long as i have Socom im happy :D
The PS3 has the ability to upscale, so I don't know why it wouldn't be able to do it with PS3 games, it does it with PS1, PS2, and DVD titles.
So instead of worrying about compression, devs have to worry about where and how many times to put textures and other things on blu-ray? If what you are saying is correct, then you are just trading one problem for another.
Never really got into Socom, GRAW is better!
i played the demo for GRAW 2 and although somethings are neat like using sixaxis to control scope i dont like the Over The Shoulder view (OTS). and i dont know why but the movement just seems slow and very restrictive. and cover systems are cheap for online play.
but i dont necessarily like the games everyone else does either. i dont like RPGs or 'Halo' type futuristic shooters. :)