Options

Metal Gear Solid 4 delayed to Q2 of 2008: Inflammatory Thread Title Here

1246714

Posts

  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    Right now the PS3 is following the 360's sales trend for the first part of its life. The only difference is that at this point in the 360's life, it had a system seller - gears of war - come out at the crucial holiday season. A year later, they have another major system seller; Halo 3. The PS3, while trending roughly along and slightly below the 360, has not yet had a real killer app. Its next killer app will be some time in Q2 '08 or later. It's becoming a too-little-too-late situation, in terms of overall hardware sales.

    What is going to change at some time in the future to allow the PS3 to scrape past the 360?

    The 360 is a bust in Japan, but that market is heavily outweighed by NA. Europe still puts the 360 at about 4M and the PS3 at about 2M. So while a price drop and what have you may increase sony's momentum in EU, they still have to overcome that lead...


    What would it be for a more expensive system that is arguably equal in terms of hardware have to do when it's pretty much blown 2 holiday seasons in a row to come out on top in the end, realistically? There has never been a time where a console has lagged significantly only to burst ahead towards the end.

    Furthermore, third parties are really losing out on the PS3. A lot of third parties are making tremendous profit on the 360, and just about or over twice the amount on the Wii than the PS3. When you have a smaller installed base and higher production costs, you're looking at a situation where third parties are going to be pretty hesitant to do anything special for the system. And when you begin to lack these important titles, the distinction between the PS3 and 360 begins to blur, and other things like price become a more important factor. (First party/second titles begin to be the primary reason to get the thing). PS3 doesn't have a grip on Capcom, it don't have a grip Squareenix, it ddoesn't have a grip on Rockstar. Not like the PS2 did. These are all reasons piling up for why the PS3 is just coming to a point where it's not that much more enticing than a less expensive 360 for consumers.


    Now if you're referring to something like 2015, yeah, maybe the PS3 will be ahead of the 360, when the next generation begins and Microsoft drops support for the 360, and sony maintains PS3 support. Maybe a couple of years once MS and Nintendo have moved on from this gen, and PS3 prices are sub $150, then yeah, if you're referring to that distant time, then I can see the PS3 sales ecilpsing the 360.




    At absolute best, I can see them being tied, but only if Sony's exclusives are absolutely killer in terms of pushing hardware sales, and Sony can keep up with a reasonable price.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't think that FFXIII or MGS4 will do anything major to improve the PS3's position. I feel that a lot of Western gamers over the years have been getting increasingly irritated by the weird stuff that happens in the MGS games, especially in light of the fact that there are tons of Western developed games for consoles now.

    I'm not saying the Western MGS audience has disappeared or anything, I'm saying that I don't think it's large enough to make a big difference. Back in the day, I pretty much bought a PS1 entirely for FF7 and MGS1. Loved them both and still enjoy them now. But between FF8 and FF12, none of the FF games lived up to what I wanted (an awesome story, not awesome graphics). FF12 was enjoyable, but it dragged on and eventually hit some weird story twists.

    MGS2 was massively weird and to me was a massive disappointment. I didn't like that MGS3 didn't have you play as the actual Solid Snake or a lot of the weirdness that game had, but it felt like it took a lot of steps in the right direction to me. Then we get MGS4, which we can already see from the trailers that it'll feature: a super-old snake, dancing helper robots, Raiden (ugh), a tiringly obvious anti-war message, soldiers controlled by nano-machines, and a vampire guy you already killed. Twice.

    I think this could sell like crazy in Japan. I think it'll sell ok for the rest of the world. I also think that Konami is crazy if they think all gamers, everywhere, will just disregard how weird the last couple of games have been. MGS isn't like Pokemon. The target audience isn't a bunch of elementary-level kids. It's for older folks, but then they take the story and character and totally crazy the stuff up.

    MGS2 sold really, really well, but then MGS3 saw almost half the sales. Enough to be a hit, sure. But a sales drop of millions? That was on a system that pretty much everybody owned. Now the series is just as odd as MGS2 (and obviously so, not the bait-and-switch crap that Konami pulled with MGS2), is on a system with a tiny fraction of the userbase of the PS1/PS2, and is a fraction of the userbase of the two other competing systems.

    Personally, I really hope that Konami gets over themselves (by which I mean, Kojima needs to get over himself) and does multiplatform this game. I want Konami to be a major competitor, but it looks to me like they are taking all the wrongs bets to do it.

    Ninja Snarl P on
  • Options
    MonkeydryeMonkeydrye Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    If you think people no long dig MGS like they used to WHY should they multi platform it?

    As for why Kojima doesn't like multi platform, it's because he likes to dig as deep into a console as possible and really use it. That makes it very hard to MP it. Maybe he should have picked a different platform, but I won't fault a developer for wanting to make a game the best it can, rather than just mass produce it.

    Monkeydrye on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I really don't see how porting a game from the console it was designed for to another console will end well. The MGS series has always been designed around the current Playstation, to function best on it and show off what it can do.

    DouglasDanger on
  • Options
    LotharsLothars Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    Lothars on
  • Options
    Inglorious CoyoteInglorious Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    If you think people no long dig MGS like they used to WHY should they multi platform it?
    Because,

    a) many of us would like to play the game without dropping $560.

    b) the game will sell better if it's available to 17 million people as opposed to 6 million people.

    Inglorious Coyote on
  • Options
    AngryAngry The glory I had witnessed was just a sleight of handRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    will gt5 really sell that well? it sold huge in the past, but what competition did it have? the more i see of gt5 the less excited about it i get. it was going to be a reason i eventually bought a ps3, but how do you not have a damage model in the year 2008?

    Angry on
  • Options
    DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Maybe the next MGS game will be multi-platform, but I would not count on MGS4 being on anything that is not a PS3.

    DouglasDanger on
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    Im curious as to what you are basing this prediction on? Gut feeling or a set of release dates?

    Since PS3 launched 360 has outsold it. the gap between them has increased with no real signs of slowdown.

    For PS3 to overtake 360 in WW sales even if the 360 stopped selling ANY hardware from this point on, the PS3 would have to sell over 200k per month.

    It hasnt done that for a long time.


    Not to rain on your parade or anything, but the odds of Ps3 overtaking 360 by late 2009 are, well, judging by the past years experience, retardedly slim.

    So unless something huge happens between now and then, I dont see it happening.

    I mean, PS3 has been lowered in price by nearly 40% since launch, and still sells less. the moment the Ps3 ends up comparable in price to the 360, Im sure Microsoft will just slash the price and still be 100 dollars cheaper. PS3 will never be cheaper to buy than a 360 for this entire generation, and price is the first barrier to entry.

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    DashuiDashui Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Nice thread title. That wasn't designed to cause argument, I bet. :P

    Dashui on
    Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
  • Options
    MonkeydryeMonkeydrye Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    If you think people no long dig MGS like they used to WHY should they multi platform it?
    Because,

    a) many of us would like to play the game without dropping $560.

    b) the game will sell better if it's available to 17 million people as opposed to 6 million people.

    A) may be true but B) just because many people have a console doesn't mean they buy all genre's of games for it. Also, on the PS3 it would have less competition, so possibly a greater % of owners may buy it.

    I would love to have more market info on the consoles. In my tiny little world, all of the 360 owners I know only care about sports and Halo. None of them care about MGS. All of the Wii owners have them for their kids and own only a couple of games with little care about what is coming out. And all of the PS3 owners gobble up every game that comes down the pipe. I know that isn't universal, but I would love to see real data. Demographics and what games are selling and why.

    Monkeydrye on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    RonenRonen Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    If you think people no long dig MGS like they used to WHY should they multi platform it?
    Because,

    a) many of us would like to play the game without dropping $560.

    b) the game will sell better if it's available to 17 million people as opposed to 6 million people.

    A) may be true but B) just because many people have a console doesn't mean they buy all genre's of games for it.

    You... you just made his point for him. If only a percentage of a console's user base will buy a game, then it helps to have more consoles out there.
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    Also, on the PS3 it would have less competition, so possibly a greater % of owners may buy it.

    All the more reason for people to not drop $500 on a system. If they like MGS's genre, and MGS is the only game of that genre on the system, are they really going to shell out for it? A vast majority of people won't.
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    I would love to have more market info on the consoles. In my tiny little world, all of the 360 owners I know only care about sports and Halo. None of them care about MGS. All of the Wii owners have them for their kids and own only a couple of games with little care about what is coming out. And all of the PS3 owners gobble up every game that comes down the pipe. I know that isn't universal, but I would love to see real data. Demographics and what games are selling and why.

    As someone whose only home console is a Wii, my only reaction to this is wow.

    I mean, I'd love to spend more time on my Wii, but my nonexistant kids are always on it playing those derned caz-yual games. Dern kids.

    Ronen on
    Go play MOTHER3

    or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    Monkeydrye wrote: »
    If you think people no long dig MGS like they used to WHY should they multi platform it?
    Because,

    a) many of us would like to play the game without dropping $560.

    b) the game will sell better if it's available to 17 million people as opposed to 6 million people.

    A) may be true but B) just because many people have a console doesn't mean they buy all genre's of games for it. Also, on the PS3 it would have less competition, so possibly a greater % of owners may buy it.

    I would love to have more market info on the consoles. In my tiny little world, all of the 360 owners I know only care about sports and Halo. None of them care about MGS. All of the Wii owners have them for their kids and own only a couple of games with little care about what is coming out. And all of the PS3 owners gobble up every game that comes down the pipe. I know that isn't universal, but I would love to see real data. Demographics and what games are selling and why.

    % means fuck all.

    Hard sales mean everything.


    Sell to 50% of PS3 owners means nothing.

    Sell to 25% of 360 and PS3 owners = more sales = more money.

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for this game. If they say it isnt ready... DONT RELEASE IT. I'd rather have the best fucking game possible and wait a couple of months than get it now and have it suck ass. There are plenty of other things to play on the PS3 to keep us busy until then... even though I see some of you are still hanging on to the old "NO GAEMZ 4 PS3 LOLOL"

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    Roanth on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    You understand that its difficult as it is to replace failing 360 consoles when their counterparts no longer exist in some cases thanks to hardware revisions and that fucking off and making a whole new console will just not help that? If it doesn't fully support all 360 games that will be another shit storm. MS forcing another gen will not help them or us.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    My prediction is that MGS4 will be PS3 exclusive, but in 6-12 months there will be a new version of it out, with bonus content and new features, which will be on the PS3 and 360 (maybe with some technical downgrades, but hopefully still perfectly enjoyable)

    LewieP on
  • Options
    Inglorious CoyoteInglorious Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    You understand that its difficult as it is to replace failing 360 consoles when their counterparts no longer exist in some cases thanks to hardware revisions and that fucking off and making a whole new console will just not help that? If it doesn't fully support all 360 games that will be another shit storm. MS forcing another gen will not help them or us.
    Since MS was smart this time in licensing hardware, I see no reason why the next Xbox won't support 360 games.

    And since when is MS having trouble fixing 360's?

    Inglorious Coyote on
  • Options
    bruinbruin Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Angry wrote: »
    will gt5 really sell that well? it sold huge in the past, but what competition did it have? the more i see of gt5 the less excited about it i get. it was going to be a reason i eventually bought a ps3, but how do you not have a damage model in the year 2008?

    Regardless of quality, millions will buy it for the name alone

    I'm sure it'll be great though

    bruin on
  • Options
    Inglorious CoyoteInglorious Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    bruin wrote: »
    Angry wrote: »
    will gt5 really sell that well? it sold huge in the past, but what competition did it have? the more i see of gt5 the less excited about it i get. it was going to be a reason i eventually bought a ps3, but how do you not have a damage model in the year 2008?

    Regardless of quality, millions will buy it for the name alone

    I'm sure it'll be great though
    I don't get why people love GT, as I find it boring as hell.

    It'll sell a ton though, always does.

    Inglorious Coyote on
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    You understand that its difficult as it is to replace failing 360 consoles when their counterparts no longer exist in some cases thanks to hardware revisions and that fucking off and making a whole new console will just not help that? If it doesn't fully support all 360 games that will be another shit storm. MS forcing another gen will not help them or us.

    I really don't understand how the first part of your statement has anything to do with the next generation of consoles. I congratulate you for working the RRoD into your post but failings of past consoles do not necessarily impact future ones (unless you think the PS3 has the same hardware issues the PS2 sis). On your second point, the last generation was 5 years and I thought I heard from Allard in 2005 that MS was looking at 5 year generations. Your statement that it won't "help" them is conjecture. Clearly they thought launching the 360 despite the fact that the oXbox was less than 5 years old was in their advantage so why not do it again? Like I said, it all comes down to cost and market position. The company is currently dead last in both is Sony. They almost can't afford to have a 5-year generation because of the enormous costs of the PS3 but that doesn't mean their competitors are in the same position.

    In terms of "us", your statement again is conjecture. If MS offered a new console in 5 years that was better than current ones for $200 are you saying thats bad for consumers?

    Roanth on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.


    You haven't answered 'why'.


    You realize that the PS3 would have to sell and maintain very close to twice its current sales rate to manage to catch up to the 360 by the end 2009, right?

    To catch up to the 360 by Jan. 2009, the PS3 would have to sell at a rate equal to the Wii.

    To catch up by the very end 2010 (or Jan. 1 2011), it would have to sell at a rate of 140%-145% of its current sales rate and maintain that consistently until 2010; and that's assuming MS does nothing in response.




    I'm sorry but you're not basing your 'prediction' on anything. The actual numbers that Sony would have to pull are extremely ambitious - nay, miraculous. Have you met Nick Parker? You two would be good friends.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    You understand that its difficult as it is to replace failing 360 consoles when their counterparts no longer exist in some cases thanks to hardware revisions and that fucking off and making a whole new console will just not help that? If it doesn't fully support all 360 games that will be another shit storm. MS forcing another gen will not help them or us.

    MS forcing this generation certainly helped them immensely.

    I dont see why forcing the next wont.

    then again, I dont have insider knowledge like you do.

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I did not approve of the thread title so I changed it.

    Don't pull any flame baiting shit like that again.

    Accualt on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Roanth wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »
    I really don't care but I still standby the fact that I think the PS3 will be beating the 360 in sales worldwide.

    That's fine. But why? When?

    When - by early 2010 at the very latest but I could see it being by fall of 2009 but maybe even before.

    You understand that in 2010 Microsoft will likely be launching a new console right? That appears to be their target for hardware generations and given that they didn't sink billions of R&D into a proprietary processor and Blu-ray drive, they are hardly going to be reluctant to launch a new piece of hardware. Think of a 360 with twice the RAM, much better graphics card, and latest Intel processor (probably built-in HD-DVD drive) and any other "new technology". Sony is either going to have to compete against this system with a 5-year old piece of hardware or launch the PS4. That is why I always laugh when Sony refers to a 10-year life span for the PS3. There is no way market forces are going to let that happen.

    The only way I see that scenario playing out is if the PS3 continues to get crushed and Microsoft / Nintendo are content to maintain the status quo. In this instance, it would probably be Sony launching a new piece of hardware to regain some of their market position. This is the precise reason why investing tons of money and time into technology that becomes outdated in a year or two is a bad business proposition for the video game market. The CD and DVD technology that Sony introduced with PS1 and PS2 were known technologies that didn't have to be completely built internally. The PS3 (from a technology perspective) is a complete split from these past successful practices and Sony is paying the price.

    You understand that its difficult as it is to replace failing 360 consoles when their counterparts no longer exist in some cases thanks to hardware revisions and that fucking off and making a whole new console will just not help that? If it doesn't fully support all 360 games that will be another shit storm. MS forcing another gen will not help them or us.

    I really don't understand how the first part of your statement has anything to do with the next generation of consoles. I congratulate you for working the RRoD into your post but failings of past consoles do not necessarily impact future ones (unless you think the PS3 has the same hardware issues the PS2 sis). On your second point, the last generation was 5 years and I thought I heard from Allard in 2005 that MS was looking at 5 year generations. Your statement that it won't "help" them is conjecture. Clearly they thought launching the 360 despite the fact that the oXbox was less than 5 years old was in their advantage so why not do it again? Like I said, it all comes down to cost and market position. The company is currently dead last in both is Sony. They almost can't afford to have a 5-year generation because of the enormous costs of the PS3 but that doesn't mean their competitors are in the same position.

    In terms of "us", your statement again is conjecture. If MS offered a new console in 5 years that was better than current ones for $200 are you saying thats bad for consumers?


    I was referring to failures in general. And not just MS but retailers everywhere that offered any kind of warranty on the things. Its hard at the moment to deal with customers who come to use with their failed Core's and we cannot replace it because all we have is Arcades, and it is all we will now ever have.

    Saying they will release it for $200 is a bit of a stretch and pure baseless speculation. By which I mean good fucking luck with it ever coming true. Dropping the Xbox like a bad rash was basically the only way to go. A next gen wasn't far off since PS2 had been out like hwat? 6 years at that point? I honestly hope they try it and PS3s stable hardware and Wiis popularity fuck them right in the ass because no, we do not need new gens every 5 years and unless they fit a good chunk of the 360 into their new console, 360 games aren't gonna just work and they won't just absorb the cost of keeping them in there either.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think its a shame that MGS's popularity has waned over time. Its like the only consistently innovative major franchise.

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I think its a shame that MGS's popularity has waned over time. Its like the only consistently innovative major franchise.

    Really?

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I think its a shame that MGS's popularity has waned over time. Its like the only consistently innovative major franchise.

    Really?

    Really.

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • Options
    corin7corin7 San Diego, CARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I was referring to failures in general. And not just MS but retailers everywhere that offered any kind of warranty on the things. Its hard at the moment to deal with customers who come to use with their failed Core's and we cannot replace it because all we have is Arcades, and it is all we will now ever have.

    Saying they will release it for $200 is a bit of a stretch and pure baseless speculation. By which I mean good fucking luck with it ever coming true. Dropping the Xbox like a bad rash was basically the only way to go. A next gen wasn't far off since PS2 had been out like hwat? 6 years at that point? I honestly hope they try it and PS3s stable hardware and Wiis popularity fuck them right in the ass because no, we do not need new gens every 5 years and unless they fit a good chunk of the 360 into their new console, 360 games aren't gonna just work and they won't just absorb the cost of keeping them in there either.

    Speak for yourself. I really don't mind buying a new console every 5 years. I mean as it is I buy a new $400 video card every two years for my pc. 3 years from now the 360 will be showing it's age and I will be more than willing to pay for a new system.

    corin7 on
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I think its a shame that MGS's popularity has waned over time. Its like the only consistently innovative major franchise.

    Really?

    mgs3-pain-cobra-unit_small.gif

    It's a guy who makes a gun out of bees that shoots bees at you! How much more innovative do you need to be?

    DanHibiki on
  • Options
    AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I was referring to failures in general. And not just MS but retailers everywhere that offered any kind of warranty on the things. Its hard at the moment to deal with customers who come to use with their failed Core's and we cannot replace it because all we have is Arcades, and it is all we will now ever have.

    Whoa, what store do you work at? I need to know so that I never buy a replacement plan from there.
    Arcade is just a new version of the same model, there is no reason your store should be refusing to replace a core with an Arcade. It would be like saying you can't have this replacement PS3 because it is now packaged with Spider-Man 3 on Blu-Ray. God, if I was told that when my core (inevitably? =p) breaks down I'd take the store to the BBB.

    And, yeah, I think the 5 year cycle is too fast now. I wouldn't complain about 7, though.

    Accualt on
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Okay, did Sony specifically say that they wouldn't release the PS4 until after the PS3 had been out for 10 years? Or did they say they will support the PS3 for 10 years? Because it seems like everyone is making it out as if they said the former, when the latter is probably what they meant.

    Secondly, can there ever be a MGS4 thread that doesn't devolve into circle jerks over sales charts? I'm getting a bit tired of the constant lolsony. I LOVE Nintendo, but I prefer the "Nintendo is DOOMED" days over this. It was a lot more tongue in cheek then. This seems almost mean-spirited.

    Dirty on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Sony didn't say that they won't release a PS4 until after 10 years, you are correct.

    But the reason we're talking the way we're talking is because people, developers, and publishers move on when new generations start.

    Sony PR speaks of the 10 year life cycle as if it's going to be just as viable in 10 years as a platform as it is now. They say that as if to justify the higher price tag, as if they're "future proofing" the thing, as if having the almighty Cell and causing the price to be $600 at launch is justified because they they say that it'll be viable for 10 full years. That's just not going to be the case. Next gen will launch, people will move on. After the PS4 hits, a few decent games will come out here and there and the system (PS3) will essentially be done. It won't be competing in terms of hardware or software when the next gen machines come out. The 10 year life cycle thing is PR bullshit to try and justify the excessive price of the thing. Even the PS2, which has an enormous install base, is on its last legs at 7 or 8 years. There's no way the PS3 will match the success of the PS2, and to expect it to have nearly equal viability in 10 years that the PS2 has at 7 is just ridiculous. The PS2 is the exception and Sony is treating it like the rule.



    As far as sales charts, well, whatever. We have a guy come in and say that the PS3 is going to overtake the 360 by 2009 and he provides no rational basis for his claim. I'm sorry, but I can't let that stand, and I have to use actual hard numbers to debunk that bullshit.

    Does this seem mean-spirited? I don't know if it is or not. Nobody is claiming the doom of Sony. People are just claiming that it's not the juggernaut that the PS2 was, and that a lot of PR speak is bologna. At worst, Sony is doing just a little worse than the 360.

    However, even if it does seem meansprited, can you really blame people? A lot of people haven't just forgotten all the things Sony said and did, through their execs, their marketing, their pricing, their presentations, everything. The excessive arrogance. To point out how that arrogance has cost them a great deal is very satisfying. Maybe people have personal reasons for this attitude. Hell, I wanted a PS3 more than anything before it was released. All the terrible PR and other horrid things Sony did, I kinda brushed off. But $600? Fuck that. I'm not going to pay $600 for a console just because it's a "Playstation." Thank God they lowered the price, finally, to something more reasonable. But at this point, the damage has been done. A lot of reasons why I would've chosen a PS3 over a 360 are gone. MGS4 is, literally, the last remaining reason why I'm interested in a PS3, and the last remaining reason why I'm even considering getting one when the less-expensive 360 is calling my name.

    Maybe other people feel similarly.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dirty wrote: »
    Okay, did Sony specifically say that they wouldn't release the PS4 until after the PS3 had been out for 10 years? Or did they say they will support the PS3 for 10 years? Because it seems like everyone is making it out as if they said the former, when the latter is probably what they meant.

    Secondly, can there ever be a MGS4 thread that doesn't devolve into circle jerks over sales charts? I'm getting a bit tired of the constant lolsony. I LOVE Nintendo, but I prefer the "Nintendo is DOOMED" days over this. It was a lot more tongue in cheek then. This seems almost mean-spirited.

    Every PS3/PS3 exclusive game thread is like this. About one page of decent dicussion followed by sales charts, lolsony, and doom predictions.

    And a 5 year cycle is fine if they support the former gen machine for a couple more years.... like Sony is doing.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm not saying you shouldn't have debunked that guy's bullshit. Hell, I went with a PS3, but I know there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it overtaking the 360. But at the same time, even if that guy hadn't mentioned it, the sales figures would have come into this thread sooner or later, because every MGS4 thread follows the same pattern.

    "Hey guys, MGS4 news!"
    "Sweet."
    "Meh, let me know when its coming to the 360."
    "They're not going to port it. Kojima doesn't want to."
    "Well take a look at these sales charts and you'll see 10 million + reasons for him to change his mind."

    It gets a bit annoying.

    Dirty on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    To be fair, though, this isn't a "MGS4 thread" so much as it is a "MGS4 is delayed" thread.

    I mean, if this were a thread devoted to MGS4 discussion; about story, characters, events, plot stuff, gameplay, videos, trailers, previews, impressions, etc; yeah, all the blah blah about sales charts predicitions about sales and multiplatform stuff would be out of place.

    But I don't think it's unfair to talk about what is happening to the PS3 as a platform when one of its major releases gets shoved back.


    ....

    personally I just follow the flow of the thread.



    As far as MGS4 is concerned, I think it looks awesome. Innovation in a main series? Well, it certainly doesn't make you feel like you're replaying the same shit every game - even MGS2, which was a 'simulation' of the Shadow Moses Island incident, had tons of new gameplay mechanics. MGS3 turned all of the previous MGS stuff on its head by taking it outdoors, and providing the camoflauge and food mechanics.

    Plus, all of these games have hundreds of ways to do everything. Like the prison in MGS1, where you have to escape. Iirc there are 18 ways to escape that cell. Or the bosses. There are tons of ways to kill each boss in MGS games.

    Tons of ways to avoid or lure enemies. Tons of ways to take advantage of the environment.


    Man what an awesome series.



    Dirty wrote: »
    I'm not saying you shouldn't have debunked that guy's bullshit. Hell, I went with a PS3, but I know there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it overtaking the 360. But at the same time, even if that guy hadn't mentioned it, the sales figures would have come into this thread sooner or later, because every MGS4 thread follows the same pattern.

    "Hey guys, MGS4 news!"
    "Sweet."
    "Meh, let me know when its coming to the 360."
    "They're not going to port it. Kojima doesn't want to."
    "Well take a look at these sales charts and you'll see 10 million + reasons for him to change his mind."

    It gets a bit annoying.


    Yeah I guess that's true. Part of the problem is the "let me know when it comes to the 360" bit. I think that sets it off.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    CokomonCokomon Our butts are worth fighting for! Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    I think its a shame that MGS's popularity has waned over time. Its like the only consistently innovative major franchise.

    Really?

    mgs3-pain-cobra-unit_small.gif

    It's a guy who makes a gun out of bees that shoots bees at you! How much more innovative do you need to be?

    Simpsons did it first.

    Cokomon on
    post.png
    Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The clips I've seen of the game make my saliva glands go into overdrive. I'm a patient man... owning a PS3 is a testament to that. I was an early adopter and had to go pretty much with Madden, FEAR and Resistance for the first 7 months. Now it is no longer the case. I have my hands full with the system and I havent even touched Ratchet or Uncharted. I'm getting those for Christmas and with Killzone 2 supposedly coming in Febuary along with still having Warhawk and Eye of Judgment, I have plenty to do until this game arrives to rock my fucking world. And even if there is a blank spot in there somewhere down the line I can always download Spyro or Crash and kill a few weeks for a few dollars.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    To be fair, though, this isn't a "MGS4 thread" so much as it is a "MGS4 is delayed" thread.

    I mean, if this were a thread devoted to MGS4 discussion; about story, characters, events, plot stuff, gameplay, videos, trailers, previews, impressions, etc; yeah, all the blah blah about sales charts predicitions about sales and multiplatform stuff would be out of place.

    It still happens. I think the only time we were able to get a decent thread going without getting derailed by all the PS3vs360 B.S. was to make it a general discussion of the entire series, not just the PS3-exclusive MGS4.

    Dirty on
  • Options
    AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Sony didn't say that they won't release a PS4 until after 10 years, you are correct.

    But the reason we're talking the way we're talking is because people, developers, and publishers move on when new generations start.

    Sony PR speaks of the 10 year life cycle as if it's going to be just as viable in 10 years as a platform as it is now. They say that as if to justify the higher price tag, as if they're "future proofing" the thing, as if having the almighty Cell and causing the price to be $600 at launch is justified because they they say that it'll be viable for 10 full years. That's just not going to be the case. Next gen will launch, people will move on. After the PS4 hits, a few decent games will come out here and there and the system (PS3) will essentially be done. It won't be competing in terms of hardware or software when the next gen machines come out. The 10 year life cycle thing is PR bullshit to try and justify the excessive price of the thing. Even the PS2, which has an enormous install base, is on its last legs at 7 or 8 years. There's no way the PS3 will match the success of the PS2, and to expect it to have nearly equal viability in 10 years that the PS2 has at 7 is just ridiculous. The PS2 is the exception and Sony is treating it like the rule.



    As far as sales charts, well, whatever. We have a guy come in and say that the PS3 is going to overtake the 360 by 2009 and he provides no rational basis for his claim. I'm sorry, but I can't let that stand, and I have to use actual hard numbers to debunk that bullshit.

    Does this seem mean-spirited? I don't know if it is or not. Nobody is claiming the doom of Sony. People are just claiming that it's not the juggernaut that the PS2 was, and that a lot of PR speak is bologna. At worst, Sony is doing just a little worse than the 360.

    However, even if it does seem meansprited, can you really blame people? A lot of people haven't just forgotten all the things Sony said and did, through their execs, their marketing, their pricing, their presentations, everything. The excessive arrogance. To point out how that arrogance has cost them a great deal is very satisfying. Maybe people have personal reasons for this attitude. Hell, I wanted a PS3 more than anything before it was released. All the terrible PR and other horrid things Sony did, I kinda brushed off. But $600? Fuck that. I'm not going to pay $600 for a console just because it's a "Playstation." Thank God they lowered the price, finally, to something more reasonable. But at this point, the damage has been done. A lot of reasons why I would've chosen a PS3 over a 360 are gone. MGS4 is, literally, the last remaining reason why I'm interested in a PS3, and the last remaining reason why I'm even considering getting one when the less-expensive 360 is calling my name.

    Maybe other people feel similarly.

    If you ask me, $400 is not reasonable. It only looks reasonable after having stared at a $600 price tag for about a year.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.