Options

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

13468914

Posts

  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    The big problem is this.

    MGS4 going multiplatform is considered a 'defeat' for Sony and a 'victory' for Microsoft.

    Objectionably it is a win for both really, but because Sony is in a spot of trouble they need exclusives, while Microsofts 360 thrives on third party games.


    If Halo 3 appeared on Ps3 it would be the exact same situation.

    The point is that when a game has appeared on both in the past the most common outcome is twofold:

    It sells twice as much on 360

    The game is generally perceived to be superior on the 360.


    Whether or not both or either of these come true for any game, it is a precedent set with Madden, Creed and a few other big third party games (Orange Box)

    The problem for a company is that Sony needs them to stay exclusive to drive console sales, but the company needs to go multi platform to recoup losses, hence MGS4s 1 million day one 'requirement'.

    Its some kind of vicious cycle that I dont see how Sony can get out of other than by throwing money at people.


    Wasn't it decided that the 1 million on day one requirement was bunk created by someone who eats bunk?

    I thought it was a direct quote from Ryan Payton. I could be wrong.

    With Ubisoft saying they need 1 million sales to recoup losses, which they achieved, seems like a number which is good to use in PR as a simple to understand landmark for games.

    A lot more games make 1 million these days than last generation.

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Microsoft has also been throwing money at people to get an edge over Sony... didnt it throw 40 million dollars at rockstar to have them make 360 exclusive DLC for GTA 4?

    Aye.

    Though some insinuated it was a downpayment on a serious takeover bid on Take Two. Which I think is utter bullshit (especially considering Microsofts opposite movement of late of releasing studios rather than buying them out)

    every manufacturer offers money incentives. even nintendo (which somehow always gets conveniently ignored in this kind of discussion as some kind of innocent)

    The_Scarab on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Right. The biggest PS3 exclusives were announced ages ago. MGS4 for what we knew should have been a 2007 release. And who knows when FFXIII will come out.

    Many games assumed to be PS3 exc. are now or have gone to the 360; stuff like Ace Combat, Virtua Fighter, DMC4.

    A lot of games are going multiplat.

    It's becoming a situation where the 360 has really been consistently pulling in great games over time. The PS3 is missing a holiday season without any big console pushers. The 360 may lack some big things in 08 so far, in terms of exclusives, but a lot of their good stuff is or has been coming out this fall. A lot of stuff that arguably should've come out this fall for the PS3 is getting pushed back to '08. So it's not really.. .it's not really a big deal for either the 360 or PS3 as far as libraries are concerned, but as far as pulling sales, it's a safer bet to get your big guns out during the holiday season.


    But yeah, exclusives are going way down.

    However, Sony is going to have rely on first party titles more so than the 360. Why? Because the 360 is less expensive. If so many major titles are going multiplat, then there is no reason to pay more to get them. So Sony really does need to maintain and put out some big first party games. **

    Sony certainly has the talent. Insomniac, the Uncharted guys, Ueda's team, the GOW team, Polyphony digital. They need to start delivering! (well, insomniac and the unch guys have, yes)


    ** - let's say you want Virtua Fighter, Assassin's Creed, and GTAIV. Sure, you could get a PS3 for those. But why? You could get those and spend less on the console to do so by getting a 360. So what I mean by the above comment is that if we assume that 3rd party games are all going multiplat, then the only differences between the 360 and PS3 are essentially the price of the system and the first party games. Since price of system is in 360's favor, then Sony has to compensate for that to pull people's interest past the price disparity with first party games to get them to buy a PS3.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What big releases are 360 exclusive in the next few years anyway? The only things I can think of is any sort of Halo spinoff, Mass Effect 2, and Lost Odyssey. Most of the big titles not mentioned in my PS3 exclusive list coming up are going 360 and PS3 (Resident Evil 4, Fallout, Devil May Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Unreal Tournament 3, etc). For reasons stated by most people on why MGS4 should go multi, I think we're going to see a lot of PS3/360 multi-platform releases this generation, and so it'll come down to whose first party games you like better. As much as Halo's probably pretty fun, Microsoft really doesn't have much else in the way of first party stuff to sway me (though Lost Odyssey looks good). Sony has some good first party stuff, though.

    The situation is not as symetric as you are stating it. The 360 is cheaper and has a year on the PS3 so the PS3 needs something to overcome that while the 360 doesn't. It needs either exclusives or for multi-platform games to be clearly better on it.

    lowlylowlycook on
    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well the main problem with the former PS3 exclusives either jumping ship or going multi is that the 360 came out a year before and has had more time to build a bigger base which means more money now... the PS3 base is still growing and will continue to grow to a point where devs wont need to go multi to make a decent showing on the PS3. I can see this happening pretty much this time next year when the PS3 rolls home out and MGS4 and a few more suprises they may have in store. I've had plenty of games to play on the PS3 and none of the "big titles" for the PS3 have even dropped yet.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    Radikal_DreamerRadikal_Dreamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.

    Yeah, seriously, I don't think you can really say as a general rule that the games are better on the 360. Most of what I've seen is people saying they'd get the 360 versions because of Achievements, which to me is pretty silly. PS3 will have trophies soon too, so that could disappear (I know, it's pretty late in the game to add that, but it will be there).

    As for first party titles, you're damn right. Sony has some good IPs and some good teams. As stated, Uncharted, Warhawk, and Heavenly Sword are all first party. Motorstorm is a decent first party game. LittleBigPlanet will be first party. Resistance and when it comes Resistance 2 will be first party. Killzone 2 is first party, and Gran Turismo 5 is first party. White Knight Story is first party. God of War 3 is pretty much guaranteed to be a rockin' first party title too. And, we've yet to see what the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus team is doing.

    Radikal_Dreamer on
    theincidentsig.jpg
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.


    Who are you talking to, or what are you talking about? Nobody is claiming that the third party games are better on the 360. We're just claiming that barring exclusives, the 360 is the preferable platform because it costs less.

    If you want to get technical, some games like the EA sports titles and a good chunk of Ubi titles have suffered framerate issues after having been ported to the PS3, but I personally consider the differences largely negligible and don't think most PS3 owners really care all that much.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Microsoft has also been throwing money at people to get an edge over Sony... didnt it throw 40 million dollars at rockstar to have them make 360 exclusive DLC for GTA 4?

    Aye.

    Though some insinuated it was a downpayment on a serious takeover bid on Take Two. Which I think is utter bullshit (especially considering Microsofts opposite movement of late of releasing studios rather than buying them out)

    every manufacturer offers money incentives. even nintendo (which somehow always gets conveniently ignored in this kind of discussion as some kind of innocent)

    Uh oh... if MS does indeed buy out take two, does this affect later GTA releases?

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well the main problem with the former PS3 exclusives either jumping ship or going multi is that the 360 came out a year before and has had more time to build a bigger base which means more money now... the PS3 base is still growing and will continue to grow to a point where devs wont need to go multi to make a decent showing on the PS3. I can see this happening pretty much this time next year when the PS3 rolls home out and MGS4 and a few more suprises they may have in store. I've had plenty of games to play on the PS3 and none of the "big titles" for the PS3 have even dropped yet.


    Well, it's true that devs/pubs need more time before they can financially justify a 'risk' of a ps3 exclusive. Perhaps that time will occur when the PS3 has a larger installed base, as you mentioned. So.. good point.

    But I guess time will tell.


    The big issue is installed base and production and development costs. With the PS3's smaller installed base and high dev/production costs, it's going to take a while before the installed base becomes large enough for anything less than an MGS4-calibur game to do well financially. Until then, we'll be seeing a ton of 360/PS3 releases.

    Basically, the time that will tell... will probably be quite a ways off.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Microsoft has also been throwing money at people to get an edge over Sony... didnt it throw 40 million dollars at rockstar to have them make 360 exclusive DLC for GTA 4?

    Part of the problem is that Sony is apparently less willing to throw money to third-parties for exclusives. Rockstar and Ubisoft execs have flat-out said they approached Sony for exclusivity in exchange for money for GTA4 and Assassin's Creed (and why wouldn't they, since Sony most likely paid for timed exclusives for the previous GTAs), and Sony turned them down.

    Strangely enough, comments from Sony execs indicate they're STILL refusing to pay for exclusivity. Which is insane, since they NEED exclusive games to compete with their cheaper/more popular competitors.

    Personally I'm a fan of putting games on as many systems as possible, but from a business standpoint, Sony absolutely needs more exclusives.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.


    Who are you talking to, or what are you talking about? Nobody is claiming that the third party games are better on the 360. We're just claiming that barring exclusives, the 360 is the preferable platform because it costs less.

    If you want to get technical, some games like the EA sports titles and a good chunk of Ubi titles have suffered framerate issues after having been ported to the PS3, but I personally consider the differences largely negligible and don't think most PS3 owners really care all that much.


    The_Scarab. I saw it in the quote above. I guess I should have quoted it myself. /:

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.


    Who are you talking to, or what are you talking about? Nobody is claiming that the third party games are better on the 360. We're just claiming that barring exclusives, the 360 is the preferable platform because it costs less.

    If you want to get technical, some games like the EA sports titles and a good chunk of Ubi titles have suffered framerate issues after having been ported to the PS3, but I personally consider the differences largely negligible and don't think most PS3 owners really care all that much.


    No, someone on the last page said that. Might have been Scarab.

    And no reason to buy PS3 because 360 is cheaper? Thats a bit subjective. You're assuming that everyone who wants to play games wants a console and only a console. Some want wireless connectivity for their net access, some want to be able to charge their wireless controller, some want to watch hi-def movies. Not to go down this route again but its hardly cheaper if you have to buy that stuff on top. The charge kit is almost an essential. Yeah, yeah I know, at least MS gave users the choice to buy that HDDVD add-on.

    I know.

    There's also the matter of online play. Not a huge deal for me but you know what? Every now and again I try it out for the hell of it. I don't have to pay for 3 months or a year of service and having used both, I still am not convinced that Live is worth paying for. THe PSN experience I've had has been smooth with no lag or anything detrimental, and I don't have to pay a penny towards it.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    fragglefartfragglefart Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.


    Who are you talking to, or what are you talking about? Nobody is claiming that the third party games are better on the 360. We're just claiming that barring exclusives, the 360 is the preferable platform because it costs less.

    If you want to get technical, some games like the EA sports titles and a good chunk of Ubi titles have suffered framerate issues after having been ported to the PS3, but I personally consider the differences largely negligible and don't think most PS3 owners really care all that much.

    Yeah, that is a pretty left-field post, but hey, if you really need sources Shplane, Eurogamer have run 6 batches of 360 vs PS3 group comparisons, latest one here; http://www.eurogamer.net

    Eurogamer are pretty trustworthy, one of the better sites to be honest.

    And as for Assassin's Creed, since you "demand to see it";
    However, clearly some aspects of the development are in dire need of improvement over at Ubisoft Montreal. In addition to basic schooling on game design, the team also need to work harder on their cross-platform development because as much as I love this game, the PS3 rendition is a mocking shadow of the Xbox 360 version.

    A patch is apparently forthcoming to fix 'freezing problems' but of far more consequence would be a complete optimisation of the game engine. While the 360 game drops the odd frame here and there, by and large it's refreshing at a steady 30fps. Not so with PS3 where even the most basic action on-screen sends the refresh rate tumbling dramatically. While the detail levels and texture quality appear to be identical cross-format (though PS3 has harsher contrast), the Sony machine employs a different anti-aliasing method than 360. The result is softer edges (good) but an unnecessary blur that masks a lot of the intricate detail you'll find on Xbox 360. The blurring effect is amplified still further should you play in 1080p, which I strongly recommend you avoid if your display accepts standard 720p - as all 'HD Ready' sets do.

    Scaling and blurring aside, it's the frame-rate that is the key concern here, not just in terms of visual smoothness - essential in maintaining the in-game illusion of reality - but also in the perceived response from the controls. Sometimes, especially during combat, the game just feels sloth-like and cumbersome. Combo kills and counter-strikes depend on a split-second timing, and the muted response on the PS3 version makes this much more difficult.

    In short then, one word sums it up for me: gutted. Despite its undeniable array of shortcomings, Assassin's Creed is definitely in my top ten titles of the year, a testament to the sheer ambition of developers today and a tantalising glimpse at the technical possibilities of the games of tomorrow. The fact that this ambition doesn't extend to offering the same quality experience to PlayStation 3 owners is bitterly disappointing.

    There are links to the other 5 face-offs too, should you want to read them, although you probably won't like some of what you read there, many games are pretty much six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

    And if you don't notice / can't tell the difference anyway, like you claim, well, there really isn't much of a problem then, is there?

    fragglefart on
    fragglefart.jpg
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I dont mind "sharing" my games with other consoles at all... but I also want my platform to be successful so we get more games and equal development time on multis. That means we need exclusives.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well the main problem with the former PS3 exclusives either jumping ship or going multi is that the 360 came out a year before and has had more time to build a bigger base which means more money now... the PS3 base is still growing and will continue to grow to a point where devs wont need to go multi to make a decent showing on the PS3. I can see this happening pretty much this time next year when the PS3 rolls home out and MGS4 and a few more suprises they may have in store. I've had plenty of games to play on the PS3 and none of the "big titles" for the PS3 have even dropped yet.

    But their competitors install base is growing faster yet. And the sales of these big budget games have to be significantly higher than they were last gen just to break even since the costs are higher.

    lowlylowlycook on
    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • Options
    bongibongi regular
    edited December 2007
    Personally, I've never seen how the 360 version of a game is better than a PS3 one. They look generally identical to me. I think it's just that more people have 360's, so they will say that they prefer it for the 360.

    And who said that Assassin's Creed was better on the 360? I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box. I see no way in which anything the 360 does would cause those games to be better on it.

    It's not so much what the 360 could do that the PS3 can't (which is to say, nothing), but rather, the 360 is nearly always the lead platform (larger install base, easier to program for, better tools), so the PS3 gets relegated to "second team" or whatever status, so the game is less optimised for the PS3 and consequently does not play as well.

    bongi on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Microsoft has also been throwing money at people to get an edge over Sony... didnt it throw 40 million dollars at rockstar to have them make 360 exclusive DLC for GTA 4?

    Part of the problem is that Sony is apparently less willing to throw money to third-parties for exclusives. Rockstar and Ubisoft execs have flat-out said they approached Sony for exclusivity in exchange for money for GTA4 and Assassin's Creed (and why wouldn't they, since Sony most likely paid for timed exclusives for the previous GTAs), and Sony turned them down.

    Strangely enough, comments from Sony execs indicate they're STILL refusing to pay for exclusivity. Which is insane, since they NEED exclusive games to compete with their cheaper/more popular competitors.

    Personally I'm a fan of putting games on as many systems as possible, but from a business standpoint, Sony absolutely needs more exclusives.

    I don't really know what Sony's reasoning was, but as much as I hate them I have to at least respect them for this decision. I think offering exclusivity contracts is a goddamned abomination and as shady as you can get in the gaming market.

    Yeah, yeah, free market, capitalism, property owner rights, blah blah blah...exclusivity is pretty fucking disgusting. I think any attempt to create demand out of nothing is pretty disgusting. It's also why I hate EBStop's preordering system. It's not necessary to magick demand out of thin air. Just put your game wherever it will work and sell. No need to create fake demand by offering it as an exclusive on a particular console. It also creates headaches for gamers, when a slightly-altered product is offered on each console. So do you want the Xbox version with Spawn or the Gamecube version with Link? Granted, that was an easy choice because who the fuck gives a fucking fuck about Spawn but even so, that kind of shit is annoying too. And then you have stuff like Enchanted Arms where the game is temporarily exclusive and then you get added shit in the next console.

    Uhm, yeah, I may have veered off there but I think Rockstar offering exclusivity is disgusting and kudos to Sony for telling them to go stuff themselves.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Note also that a large number of 360 "Exclusives" are also available on the PC. (Gears of War and Bioshock. And Halo 3/Halo wars WILL get one eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect got one as well. So that's pretty much every game I would ever play on the 360, except Dead Rising and Blue Dragon.)

    So if you have an at least moderately worthwhile PC, all you have to do is upgrade to Vista, and you'll be playing all the best 360 games without having to worry about the RRoD.

    EDIT:

    Eurogamer? They've given every PS3 game that there is a bad review. They're obviously biased as hell. Most large reviewers (Game Informer, IGN etc.) give equal scores.

    But really, you're basing things on Eurogamer? You just won the Darwin Award.

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Note also that a large number of 360 "Exclusives" are also available on the PC. (Gears of War and Bioshock. And Halo 3/Halo wars WILL get one eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect got one as well. So that's pretty much every game I would ever play on the 360, except Dead Rising.)

    So if you have an at least moderately worthwhile PC, all you have to do is upgrade to Vista, and you'll be playing all the best 360 games without having to worry about the RRoD.

    All you have to do is upgrade to Vista and worry about your computer not fucking up which is just as easy if not easier as getting the RRoD on a 360.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Note also that a large number of 360 "Exclusives" are also available on the PC. (Gears of War and Bioshock. And Halo 3/Halo wars WILL get one eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect got one as well. So that's pretty much every game I would ever play on the 360, except Dead Rising.)

    So if you have an at least moderately worthwhile PC, all you have to do is upgrade to Vista, and you'll be playing all the best 360 games without having to worry about the RRoD.

    GoW was the only game on the 360 that made me want one and it came to my PC with upgraded graphics and new content. Patience in a virtue :P

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    Radikal_DreamerRadikal_Dreamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think Sony is probably thinking they'd rather use that money in making their own first party titles kick ass. Usually their console will get the game anyway, just not exclusively. I'd personally rather have them spend their money on making their gaming experiences better, rather than paying off developers not to go multi. From my perspective I get the most fun out of former than the latter.

    Also, another first party game that looks like it could be interesting is InFamous. It's being created by the developers that did Sly Cooper. May be good enough to keep an eye on anyway.

    Radikal_Dreamer on
    theincidentsig.jpg
  • Options
    kitchkitch Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    On PS3 trophies or whatever: Doesn't Microsoft own a vaguely-worded patent on Achievements?

    kitch on
  • Options
    fragglefartfragglefart Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I demand to see this. Same with Orange Box.

    Since, again, you demand it;

    ps3-version-of-orange-box-might-be-downright-unplayable/

    It refers to this 1up preview;

    www.1up.com
    After spending a significant amount of time with a near final version of the PS3 game, it's apparent that the Half-Life games in this version suffer from a number of technical flaws, which at best merely hinder gameplay and at worst make the experience downright unplayable. Framerate is a consistent issue throughout the Half-Life series of games included in The Orange Box. One moment you'll be cruising through the game at 30 frames per second and the next you'll be enjoying a slideshow of series protagonist Gordon Freeman cruising down the river. However, Portal suffers from no such technical hiccups and is on its way to being a pitch-perfect port of the spatial reasoning exercise. Due to a server connection issue, we were unable to get any time with Team Fortress 2.

    With the clock ticking, EA has a limited amount of time to fix the glaring issues which plague this port of The Orange Box. Unfortunately, it seems that, once again, PlayStation 3 owners are doomed to suffer through another substandard version of a multiplatform game.

    Just, uh, don't shoot the messenger here, I'm off to play Mass Effect. With framerate stutters, texture pop-in and all, because it's still sexy <3

    fragglefart on
    fragglefart.jpg
  • Options
    Radikal_DreamerRadikal_Dreamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    kitch wrote: »
    On PS3 trophies or whatever: Doesn't Microsoft own a vaguely-worded patent on Achievements?

    I have no idea. Now that you mention it, I do remember such a thing, but Sony's already announced trophies. I would hope their legal/copyright/patent/whatever team would have caught anything of interest.

    Radikal_Dreamer on
    theincidentsig.jpg
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    About these shitty ports... I don't see how this is Sony's fault. Theyre basically getting fucked over by Devs. And I really cant wait to hear "THE PS3 IS HARD TO PROGRAM FOR!!"

    Really? Why is it that there arent barely any tech issues with 2nd party games like Uncharted, R and C, Resistance and Warhawk? This is just bullshit.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    And no reason to buy PS3 because 360 is cheaper? Thats a bit subjective. You're assuming that...

    Good points; the value is subjective.

    But I will say that I believe that games are the predominant factor.


    Note also that a large number of 360 "Exclusives" are also available on the PC. (Gears of War and Bioshock. And Halo 3/Halo wars WILL get one eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect got one as well. So that's pretty much every game I would ever play on the 360, except Dead Rising and Blue Dragon.)

    So if you have an at least moderately worthwhile PC, all you have to do is upgrade to Vista, and you'll be playing all the best 360 games without having to worry about the RRoD.


    A game that comes out on the 360 and PC is not going to take a whole lot away from the 360. And by not also not having it on the PS3 is really going to hurt the PS3, because there is a market for these games on consoles. Let me put it this way: A game not on your system is going to hurt you even if that game is not exclusive to an opposing system.

    So by saying that 'having a moderately worthwhile PC' and 'upgrading to vista' is all you need to play the best 360 games, that's a load of shit.

    First of all, I have a PC that runs literally everything I need it to do extremely well. It cannot play bioshock worth shit. That means I have to pay at least a couple of hundred bucks for the video card and a couple of hundred bucks for vista. Then go through all that shit and hope these poorly ported games work on the system. At that cost you're looking at the price of a 360 anyway, on which these games are guaranteed to work.



    EDIT:
    Eurogamer? They've given every PS3 game that there is a bad review. They're obviously biased as hell. Most large reviewers (Game Informer, IGN etc.) give equal scores.

    It's not just Eurogamer. There are tons of sites with comparisons. Also, framerate is an objective measure; so even if you love or hate a console, if it has a worse framerate, you can't say, "Well, that lower framerate is your opinion."

    I'll say it again: I think that the differences between the multiplat games are largely negligible and not a big deal to me or most PS3 owners.

    About these shitty ports... I don't see how this is Sony's fault. Theyre basically getting fucked over by Devs. And I really cant wait to hear "THE PS3 IS HARD TO PROGRAM FOR!!"

    Really? Why is it that there arent barely any tech issues with 2nd party games like Uncharted, R and C, Resistance and Warhawk? This is just bullshit.

    It is bullshit and it's not Sony's fault. But it's still a fact and it's something to consider when deciding which console to purchase.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I play Bioshock and GoW without Vista so thats a non issue.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Let me put it this way: lacking a game on the PS3 is a bad situation for the PS3, even if that game is on every other system available.

    So a game being on the 360 and on the PC, but not on the PS3, is certainly not helping the PS3.





    edit: wait, how did we get on this topic? Maybe we should shift gears.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    fragglefartfragglefart Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Eurogamer? They've given every PS3 game that there is a bad review. They're obviously biased as hell. Most large reviewers (Game Informer, IGN etc.) give equal scores.

    But really, you're basing things on Eurogamer? You just won the Darwin Award.

    What, Eurogamer? Bad PS3 reviews? Recently including the 8/10 for Singstar, the 8/10 for Ratchet & Clank, and the 9/10 for Uncharted?

    Oh I see whats going on here, your brain has fallen out. I guess I'm done with this thread then.

    fragglefart on
    fragglefart.jpg
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Let me put it this way: lacking a game on the PS3 is a bad situation for the PS3, even if that game is on every other system available.

    So a game being on the 360 and on the PC, but not on the PS3, is certainly not helping the PS3.


    edit: wait, how did we get on this topic? Maybe we should shift gears.


    I know.... in general. I can say this with the upmost sincerity: Gears was a game I wanted to play so bad I was going to buy a 360 years earlier than I was planning. Rumors about it coming to the PC held me off and when it came out it removed my only reason(to date) to purchase a 360. I cant say this is widespread but for me at least the game porting to the PC lost MS at least 1 360 sale.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Fragglefart: Get an actual review. Not a preview. And not from somewhere that consistently gives PS3 games bad reviews, like Eurogamer. Get somewhere that's actually fair.

    slash000: And? I'm not talking about sales of systems, I'm talking about whether or not the system is actually worth getting. When a PC version of a game exists, and you already have a PC, what's the point of buying a console to play it on?

    And for the not being able to easily upgrade- I know people with 5-6 year old computers that run Crysis just fine. FUCKING CRYSIS. It can also run Bioshock. My computer could easily run them with a simple Vista upgrade. And it's about 3 years old. Don't pretend that these things are actually that hard to run.

    Drez: Even if Vista sucks, it's not as bad as the 360's ridiculous failure rate. It was what, 30% or something like that? No console has ever been that bad.

    Radikal_Dreamer: On the subject of Infamous, FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    actually, I'm looking at the metascores for PS3 games.

    Consistently, Eurogamer scores games available for the PS3 higher than the average of all the other reviewers.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    Let me put it this way: lacking a game on the PS3 is a bad situation for the PS3, even if that game is on every other system available.

    So a game being on the 360 and on the PC, but not on the PS3, is certainly not helping the PS3.


    edit: wait, how did we get on this topic? Maybe we should shift gears.


    I know.... in general. I can say this with the upmost sincerity: Gears was a game I wanted to play so bad I was going to buy a 360 years earlier than I was planning. Rumors about it coming to the PC held me off and when it came out it removed my only reason(to date) to purchase a 360. I cant say this is widespread but for me at least the game porting to the PC lost MS at least 1 360 sale.



    And so by not having it on the PS3, this helps the PS3 how?

    It doesn't.


    Having it on the 360 has certainly helped the 360 a lot, even though there are a few people that decided to forgo a 360 for the PC version.

    The 360 saw a huge sales spike when Gears came out for it. Huge. It was also right around the holiday season, of course. But the sort of figures it pulled were huge. And Gears sold.. oh God... tremendously on the 360.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Eurogamer? They've given every PS3 game that there is a bad review. They're obviously biased as hell. Most large reviewers (Game Informer, IGN etc.) give equal scores.

    But really, you're basing things on Eurogamer? You just won the Darwin Award.

    What, Eurogamer? Bad PS3 reviews? Recently including the 8/10 for Singstar, the 8/10 for Ratchet & Clank, and the 9/10 for Uncharted?

    Oh I see whats going on here, your brain has fallen out. I guess I'm done with this thread then.

    I've never looked up any of those games. I'll give you those three. But most of the PS3 games I've seen Eurogamer reviews for have been horrible. Or maybe I was thinking of some other place that starts with an E. I admit that I am not infallible. It really would be nice if everyone else would, though.

    EDIT: Whoever said we should talk about something else? Yeah, I agree. It's not like anyone's going to win this argument.

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000: And? I'm not talking about sales of systems, I'm talking about whether or not the system is actually worth getting. When a PC version of a game exists, and you already have a PC, what's the point of buying a console to play it on?

    We're not talking about getting a 360 or not.

    You're trying to say that since a game is on the 360 and on the PC, then it somehow negates the con of not having it on the PS3 at all.


    I'm sorry, but a great game on a system is always great for that system. You cannot argue that a system that lacks the game is on equal terms with the other system that does have it simply because the game can also be found elsewhere.



    Sales figures show that the gaming market vastly prefers to buy a lot of these titles on the 360 version anyway (as opposed to the PC). (Oh noes! I used sales figures!) So even if you can choose not to get a 360, or the game for the 360, you're still looking at a situation where a ton of people actually are. A vast majority for these titles' sales anyway.

    slash000 on
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    About these shitty ports... I don't see how this is Sony's fault. Theyre basically getting fucked over by Devs. And I really cant wait to hear "THE PS3 IS HARD TO PROGRAM FOR!!"

    Really? Why is it that there arent barely any tech issues with 2nd party games like Uncharted, R and C, Resistance and Warhawk? This is just bullshit.

    I would suspect that the devs are reluctant to commit more than the bare minimum of resources to porting to the PS3. It seems reasonable to develop primarily for the 360 if going the multiplatform route, since it's likely that's where the lions share of the profit will come from.

    In short, they're probably rush jobs to some extent, and the problems are compounded by the fact that porting from 360 -> PS3 seems to be on the difficult side (NB: this is not the same as saying it's hard to code for the PS3, the impression that I get is that it's hard to port stuff to the PS3).

    japan on
  • Options
    Lord ShplaneLord Shplane Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    slash000: And? I'm not talking about sales of systems, I'm talking about whether or not the system is actually worth getting. When a PC version of a game exists, and you already have a PC, what's the point of buying a console to play it on?

    We're not talking about getting a 360 or not.

    You're trying to say that since a game is on the 360 and on the PC, then it somehow negates the con of not having it on the PS3 at all.


    I'm sorry, but a great game on a system is always great for that system. You cannot argue that a system that lacks the game is on equal terms with the other system that does have it simply because the game can also be found elsewhere.



    Sales figures show that the gaming market vastly prefers the 360 version anyway. (Oh noes! I used sales figures!)

    THIS IS THE LAST POST I AM MAKING ABOUT 360 VS PS3. JUST KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY SOMETHING IF I WASN'T STOPPING MYSELF NOW.

    The 360 is hailed as having an incredible number of games on it that other systems do not. But really, if you can buy those games on your PC, you don't need a 360 for the. Sure, the fact that they're not on the PS3 is a strike against the PS3. But the fact that they're not really 360 exclusive is a half a strike against the 360. And problems with the 360 make the PS3 better in comparison.

    Lord Shplane on
    Awww... My evil anime mask guy picture doesn't work. ;_;
  • Options
    MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Huh... no pride in their work in other words... we will remember this...

    *plots revenge with the leigon of doom (Sony)*

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    slash000 wrote: »
    slash000: And? I'm not talking about sales of systems, I'm talking about whether or not the system is actually worth getting. When a PC version of a game exists, and you already have a PC, what's the point of buying a console to play it on?

    We're not talking about getting a 360 or not.

    You're trying to say that since a game is on the 360 and on the PC, then it somehow negates the con of not having it on the PS3 at all.


    I'm sorry, but a great game on a system is always great for that system. You cannot argue that a system that lacks the game is on equal terms with the other system that does have it simply because the game can also be found elsewhere.



    Sales figures show that the gaming market vastly prefers the 360 version anyway. (Oh noes! I used sales figures!)

    THIS IS THE LAST POST I AM MAKING ABOUT 360 VS PS3. JUST KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY SOMETHING IF I WASN'T STOPPING MYSELF NOW.

    The 360 is hailed as having an incredible number of games on it that other systems do not. But really, if you can buy those games on your PC, you don't need a 360 for the. Sure, the fact that they're not on the PS3 is a strike against the PS3. But the fact that they're not really 360 exclusive is a half a strike against the 360. And problems with the 360 make the PS3 better in comparison.



    Your argument is this:

    I can buy a 360 and get Gears of War, Lost Planet, Crackdown, and Bioshock. As well as a ton of other fantastic games on the system.


    BUT---

    If I have a PS3 which doesn't have those games, which costs more to buy than a 360, then I can also upgrade my PC for a couple of hundred dollars more to be able to play those games!

    Therefor, it helps the PS3 to be in a situation where I have to buy additional hardware to access the games that are available up front for the 360, since I have the option to spend that extra money.


    besides, I think you're really pushing it when you say that you don't really need a 360 because there are something like 4 games that it has that the PS3 does not that you can get on the PC.

    slash000 on
Sign In or Register to comment.