Metal Gear And Why It Should Go Multiplatform

Metal Gear Solid 2  Substance Sold HORRIBLY for the Xbox, Not to mention Twin Snakes wasn't as successful either.

Why Risk money porting it over to the 360 if it's not going to sell? Whereas on the PS3, it will sell great.

MGS2 - Sold 6 million

MGS3 - Sold 4 million

Konami knows they'll make money off this game even if its an exclusive.

And Oh yeah, How many Disks would the 360 version have? This game will take up the whole blu-ray disk.

Kojima has said time and time again, that he need blu-ray for this, and only cell could do that, etc...

Now, if Konami or Kojima came up and announced it to 360, eitheir it would make Kojima look like a lier and a fanboy or 360 would get a downgraded port.

Which one of this two realities seems less disgusting? 

Kojima has said time and time again, that he need blu-ray for this, and only cell could do that, etc...

Now, if Konami or Kojima came up and announced it to 360, eitheir it would make Kojima look like a lier and a fanboy or 360 would get a downgraded port.

Which one of this two realities seems less disgusting?

lordxymor

Kojima says, Insomniac says, Evolution says.....the pattern is all parties are bias towards Sony. Now when a neutral dev stands up and clearly says Blu-ray is needed for games then I will take notice. Until then its just a bunch of devs on the Sony bandwagon that will say anything to hype their project and keep a smile on Sony's face. Also until we as gamers see a game that is the template for "true" next gen gaming on a Blu-ray disc, I will be happy HD gaming on my 360 and its proven DVD9 format.

IMO if Blu-ray was really needed for MGS4, Kojima wouldnt be the only one to hype the product, Konami would have been more than happy to back him up on his comments. But instead we have Konami playing the symantics game with no definate answer , while Kojima changes his mind each interview whether or not MGS4 can be done on the 360! 

Game On...   

Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance Sold HORRIBLY for the Xbox, Not to mention Twin Snakes wasn't as successful either.

Why Risk money porting it over to the 360 if it's not going to sell? Whereas on the PS3, it will sell great.

MGS2 - Sold 6 million

MGS3 - Sold 4 million

Konami knows they'll make money off this game even if its an exclusive.

And Oh yeah, How many Disks would the 360 version have? This game will take up the whole blu-ray disk.

CWEBB04z

You are right those ports sold horribly but for one reason only, there was no hype with these games. With the MGS series on the PS2 Konami went all out to let the gaming community know these games were coming to the system. As the minority who actually bought MGS2 Substance on the Xbox, I know there was no hype at all this title was coming to Xbox. But to be fair most third party Japanese devs used experimental (Capcom) or dated (Konami) titles as guinea pigs to see how they would do on the Xbox and when they didnt perform well, it was their excuse to decrease the little support they had for the system.

But now the 360 has the majority of the market this gen and the system has proven itself as a money maker to the devs that once shunned the product line. If MGS4 was ported to the system, it would not perform as it did during the XBox1 days it would generate a healthy profit for Konami because at the 360 has the larger install base this gen, not the PS3!

Game On.... 

MGS4 is not going multiplatform, and I swear I will get really angry if I see any more threads about it. Lemmings are such hypocrites... they say 360 has the best exclusives, yet they always beg companies to release MGS4/DMC4/FF13/everything else on their system. Shut up and be happy with the exclusives you have.Watch_Me_Xplode

There is nothing to get mad about, Konami is a third party dev which means their game library is open to anyone who can afford their services.....Stop acting as if third party devs are under Sony's development house where it would be impossible for the game to ever touch another console. Game after game the Sony camp has put their foot in their mouths by claiming a third-party, non Sony published franchise as exclusive content to the PS3 only for the title to go multiplat and they go into damge control. If you wanna use that logic then I guess Sony stole Ninty's third party devs.

Consoles only have first and second party devs as foundation of their console, all third party devs are subject to change based on the current trends of the market. Since MS is the leader this gen, its shouldnt be a surprise the amount of third party devs that are hopping on the bandwagon to earn some "next-gen" revenue instead of waiting on Sony. So follow your own advice and just be happy you have something left to play on your PS3.

Game On.... 

there is no "I don't care" option.OGTiago

then , umm, why post here?

I loved MGS 3! It blew me away, and was one of the best games I ever played on PS2. I don't think I'll be able to justify shelling out $600 on a console anytime soon, but I could convince myself to throw $400 at a new console sometime in the foreseeable. So I really do hope they publish a 360 version of MGS 4.

I don't care at all about exclusives, and wouldn't mind if they went away entirely, the way it is in PC-land. That's because the deciding factor would be the balance of price, performance and features. The PS3 obviously wins for performance and features, and even for overall value, but its price is prohibitive, and its library is weak. That makes 360, with its worse cost-to-features ratio but much lower price very appealing, and its library is strongest among the three new systems.

So because it's insane for me even to consider buying both PS3 and 360, and because MGS 4 definitely isn't exciting enough, on its own, to me to make up for 360's advantages, I definitely hope they make MGS 4 for 360. I wouldn't care if Mass Effect made it to the PS3, or if Halo did. Why do people get all caught up in this kind of thing? I buy consoles to play great games. I don't care who made them, or about having exclusive access to them. Being a console owner doesn't make you part of some super-secret clan or something; it means you were a consumer successfully attracted to a manufacturer's product. What was it that attracted you? Was it the promise of access to great software? Or was it the promise of exclusive access to great software? Because it doesn't bother me at all knowing that somebody else, using different hardware, is able to have the same game experience I did. Why should it?

 

WeeWeeJumbo

But that's exactly why there have to be exclusives.  You may not get that now, but let's go back to the last generation, when the Xbox, PS2 and GC were duking it out.  Everybody knows that the only reason that the Xbox got by was because of Halo.  Now, imagine if Halo hadn't come out, and all the Xbox had was crappy IPs and 3rd party games that could show up on any system.  Think it would have sold?  Hell no!  And ironically, this also means that the 3rd parties will leave as well, as the potential profits on that system will be sh*t compared to the development costs.  This is ironic because this means that a console DOES need exclusives to justify its existence.  This is exactly why the PS2 thrived.  Boat loads of quality first-party games, boat loads of 3rd parties.  However, while a console can survive solely on first party titles (GameCube) It won't thrive nearly as much as the competition, because there won't be a diverse consumer-base.

So, how does this translate into the need of exclusives?  Here's why:  If we didn't have exclusives, and every single game was cross-platform, then it would really come down to which console has the best graphics, which console has the most features, etc.  And  in this regard, the winner would be... Sony/Microsoft.  There'd be no reason to get a Wii, because it's underpowered and all of its exclusives (Mario, Metroid, etc.) would also appear on other consoles.  I mean, the Wii doesn't even have DVD support, let alone anything to do with movies.  The 360, on the other hand, has an extremely solid online service that could easily have digital distribution of movies, music and even art added to its roster.  While the HD-DVD might fail in the long-run, it's an optional extension anyways.  However, this is exactly why the PS3 has a chance to win.  Sony could easily tweak it's online service to be just as functional as the 360's.  The most important aspect of the PS3, though, is its blu-ray player.  All the major studios appear to be supporting blu-ray, including porn, which is as big of an incentive for many consumers as any.  Screw Wal-mart's decision to not carry Blu-ray; it'll have just beeen a really, really crappy buisness decision for them in the long-run.  The only thing that might keep Sony from winning is it's price, but that's one factor than can change at any time.  Also, the PS3 supports linux, AKA consumer-made products.

In short, Nintendo would probably go the way of Sega, developing titles for Microsoft and Sony.  M$ and Sony would keep on trying to find things outside of gaming to sway the consumers, such as HOME.  The victor would be the one with the most bang for the buck.  Game quality would probably stay the same.

Now, the question is:  Do YOU want this to happen? 

[QUOTE="WeeWeeJumbo"]

I loved MGS 3! It blew me away, and was one of the best games I ever played on PS2. I don't think I'll be able to justify shelling out $600 on a console anytime soon, but I could convince myself to throw $400 at a new console sometime in the foreseeable. So I really do hope they publish a 360 version of MGS 4.

I don't care at all about exclusives, and wouldn't mind if they went away entirely, the way it is in PC-land. That's because the deciding factor would be the balance of price, performance and features. The PS3 obviously wins for performance and features, and even for overall value, but its price is prohibitive, and its library is weak. That makes 360, with its worse cost-to-features ratio but much lower price very appealing, and its library is strongest among the three new systems.

So because it's insane for me even to consider buying both PS3 and 360, and because MGS 4 definitely isn't exciting enough, on its own, to me to make up for 360's advantages, I definitely hope they make MGS 4 for 360. I wouldn't care if Mass Effect made it to the PS3, or if Halo did. Why do people get all caught up in this kind of thing? I buy consoles to play great games. I don't care who made them, or about having exclusive access to them. Being a console owner doesn't make you part of some super-secret clan or something; it means you were a consumer successfully attracted to a manufacturer's product. What was it that attracted you? Was it the promise of access to great software? Or was it the promise of exclusive access to great software? Because it doesn't bother me at all knowing that somebody else, using different hardware, is able to have the same game experience I did. Why should it?

 

a_ratchet_fan

But that's exactly why there have to be exclusives. You may not get that now, but let's go back to the last generation, when the Xbox, PS2 and GC were duking it out. Everybody knows that the only reason that the Xbox got by was because of Halo. Now, imagine if Halo hadn't come out, and all the Xbox had was crappy IPs and 3rd party games that could show up on any system. Think it would have sold? Hell no! And ironically, this also means that the 3rd parties will leave as well, as the potential profits on that system will be sh*t compared to the development costs. This is ironic because this means that a console DOES need exclusives to justify its existence. This is exactly why the PS2 thrived. Boat loads of quality first-party games, boat loads of 3rd parties. However, while a console can survive solely on first party titles (GameCube) It won't thrive nearly as much as the competition, because there won't be a diverse consumer-base.

So, how does this translate into the need of exclusives? Here's why: If we didn't have exclusives, and every single game was cross-platform, then it would really come down to which console has the best graphics, which console has the most features, etc. And in this regard, the winner would be... Sony/Microsoft. There'd be no reason to get a Wii, because it's underpowered and all of its exclusives (Mario, Metroid, etc.) would also appear on other consoles. I mean, the Wii doesn't even have DVD support, let alone anything to do with movies. The 360, on the other hand, has an extremely solid online service that could easily have digital distribution of movies, music and even art added to its roster. While the HD-DVD might fail in the long-run, it's an optional extension anyways. However, this is exactly why the PS3 has a chance to win. Sony could easily tweak it's online service to be just as functional as the 360's. The most important aspect of the PS3, though, is its blu-ray player. All the major studios appear to be supporting blu-ray, including porn, which is as big of an incentive for many consumers as any. Screw Wal-mart's decision to not carry Blu-ray; it'll have just beeen a really, really crappy buisness decision for them in the long-run. The only thing that might keep Sony from winning is it's price, but that's one factor than can change at any time. Also, the PS3 supports linux, AKA consumer-made products.

In short, Nintendo would probably go the way of Sega, developing titles for Microsoft and Sony. M$ and Sony would keep on trying to find things outside of gaming to sway the consumers, such as HOME. The victor would be the one with the most bang for the buck. Game quality would probably stay the same.

Now, the question is: Do YOU want this to happen?

To be blunt and to the point, if Sony would have delievered the goods it promised with its PS3, these discussions wouldnt exist. For a console leader to come out in a new generation of gaming making excuses and stumbles as Sony has, I dont blame devs for looking for green pasters. But all is not gloom and doom, your theories are similar to the days when Ninty made its mistakes withthe N64 and the gaming community couldnt imagine gaming without Nintendo being their primary console....Things change, and the industry will evolve! No worries...

Game On... 

[QUOTE="a_ratchet_fan"][QUOTE="WeeWeeJumbo"]

I loved MGS 3! It blew me away, and was one of the best games I ever played on PS2. I don't think I'll be able to justify shelling out $600 on a console anytime soon, but I could convince myself to throw $400 at a new console sometime in the foreseeable. So I really do hope they publish a 360 version of MGS 4.

I don't care at all about exclusives, and wouldn't mind if they went away entirely, the way it is in PC-land. That's because the deciding factor would be the balance of price, performance and features. The PS3 obviously wins for performance and features, and even for overall value, but its price is prohibitive, and its library is weak. That makes 360, with its worse cost-to-features ratio but much lower price very appealing, and its library is strongest among the three new systems.

So because it's insane for me even to consider buying both PS3 and 360, and because MGS 4 definitely isn't exciting enough, on its own, to me to make up for 360's advantages, I definitely hope they make MGS 4 for 360. I wouldn't care if Mass Effect made it to the PS3, or if Halo did. Why do people get all caught up in this kind of thing? I buy consoles to play great games. I don't care who made them, or about having exclusive access to them. Being a console owner doesn't make you part of some super-secret clan or something; it means you were a consumer successfully attracted to a manufacturer's product. What was it that attracted you? Was it the promise of access to great software? Or was it the promise of exclusive access to great software? Because it doesn't bother me at all knowing that somebody else, using different hardware, is able to have the same game experience I did. Why should it?

 

FatalDomain

But that's exactly why there have to be exclusives. You may not get that now, but let's go back to the last generation, when the Xbox, PS2 and GC were duking it out. Everybody knows that the only reason that the Xbox got by was because of Halo. Now, imagine if Halo hadn't come out, and all the Xbox had was crappy IPs and 3rd party games that could show up on any system. Think it would have sold? Hell no! And ironically, this also means that the 3rd parties will leave as well, as the potential profits on that system will be sh*t compared to the development costs. This is ironic because this means that a console DOES need exclusives to justify its existence. This is exactly why the PS2 thrived. Boat loads of quality first-party games, boat loads of 3rd parties. However, while a console can survive solely on first party titles (GameCube) It won't thrive nearly as much as the competition, because there won't be a diverse consumer-base.

So, how does this translate into the need of exclusives? Here's why: If we didn't have exclusives, and every single game was cross-platform, then it would really come down to which console has the best graphics, which console has the most features, etc. And in this regard, the winner would be... Sony/Microsoft. There'd be no reason to get a Wii, because it's underpowered and all of its exclusives (Mario, Metroid, etc.) would also appear on other consoles. I mean, the Wii doesn't even have DVD support, let alone anything to do with movies. The 360, on the other hand, has an extremely solid online service that could easily have digital distribution of movies, music and even art added to its roster. While the HD-DVD might fail in the long-run, it's an optional extension anyways. However, this is exactly why the PS3 has a chance to win. Sony could easily tweak it's online service to be just as functional as the 360's. The most important aspect of the PS3, though, is its blu-ray player. All the major studios appear to be supporting blu-ray, including porn, which is as big of an incentive for many consumers as any. Screw Wal-mart's decision to not carry Blu-ray; it'll have just beeen a really, really crappy buisness decision for them in the long-run. The only thing that might keep Sony from winning is it's price, but that's one factor than can change at any time. Also, the PS3 supports linux, AKA consumer-made products.

In short, Nintendo would probably go the way of Sega, developing titles for Microsoft and Sony. M$ and Sony would keep on trying to find things outside of gaming to sway the consumers, such as HOME. The victor would be the one with the most bang for the buck. Game quality would probably stay the same.

Now, the question is: Do YOU want this to happen?

To be blunt and to the point, if Sony would have delievered the goods it promised with its PS3, these discussions wouldnt exist. For a console leader to come out in a new generation of gaming making excuses and stumbles as Sony has, I dont blame devs for looking for green pasters. But all is not gloom and doom, your theories are similar to the days when Ninty made its mistakes withthe N64 and the gaming community couldnt imagine gaming without Nintendo being their primary console....Things change, and the industry will evolve! No worries...

Game On...

I tip my proverbial hat to Fataldomain.   

Seriously what are u talking about? It can be praised by all, just buy a PS3 but if you choose not to then your depriving yourself of a great game.-Sir-Poof-

Once again, we dont all have that kind of money. 

[QUOTE="-Sir-Poof-"]Seriously what are u talking about? It can be praised by all, just buy a PS3 but if you choose not to then your depriving yourself of a great game.AA7

Once again, we dont all have that kind of money.

So the world should accommodate to your needs?

[QUOTE="-Sir-Poof-"]Seriously what are u talking about? It can be praised by all, just buy a PS3 but if you choose not to then your depriving yourself of a great game.AA7

Once again, we dont all have that kind of money. 

Then wait 5 years for all I care, seriously you need to look at gaming libaries of all consoles before making a choice if money is an issue and if the 360 had the better libary for your taste then be happy the 360 cant have EVERY big title out there.

I have never played the game so I am not to sure what the big deal is.

I say let it stay on the ps3. We nee some exclusive games from either maker and I have no problem with MGS staying on the ps3.

If that game was to go multi, it would only make people wonder why there are 2 console that can do relatively the same thing , as far as playing games are concerned. I am a fan of exclusives period.

MGS4 is the only game I REALLY want on the PS3. My plan is to buy the PS3 and MGS4, beat MGS4, and then return the PS3 and get my money back. :)

Ive been hooked on MGS since it came out on the PS1, too bad the PS3 flopped big time.

It's honestly REALLLLLY simple... If you want MGS4 so bad.. GO OUT AND BUY A PS3!!! DA_B0MB

Have you read any of my posts? 

[QUOTE="DA_B0MB"]It's honestly REALLLLLY simple... If you want MGS4 so bad.. GO OUT AND BUY A PS3!!! AA7

Have you read any of my posts? 

If you don't have the money, then tough luck, don't whine about it.

Honestly, I love MGS series, but I hate multi-plat games for some reason they just aren't as good and don't take advantage of the specific hardware and get watered down.  I own all 3 consoles and even though it doesn't matter to me.....I still I don't want a watered down MGS

ok then halo and gears of war should go multi platform.piemister

Once again we have another uninformed gamer....

MGS is a third party game from Konami, open to the highest bidder!!!

Halo is a first party game from Bungie/MS...no multiplat

GeOW is a MS published title by Epic...no multiplat

Lets stop acting as if third party devs are in-house Sony devs. The third party games that made the Playstation console are not your games, they are just popular titles that can be ported to any system.

Game On.... 

It's not going Multiplat. now please let it go.:evil:PowerCharged

Ad so, my foolish friend, how exactly are you so sure of that? Untill Kojima says "there will NEVER be a Metal Gear game on the Xbox 360" we cannot be sure. 

[QUOTE="PowerCharged"]It's not going Multiplat. now please let it go.:evil:AA7

Ad so, my foolish friend, how exactly are you so sure of that? Untill Kojima says "there will NEVER be a Metal Gear game on the Xbox 360" we cannot be sure.

That could also be said about halo. Bungie or M$ never came out and said that it would never be on a Sony system, but we all know it never will be. 

[QUOTE="AA7"]

[QUOTE="PowerCharged"]It's not going Multiplat. now please let it go.:evil:Wasdie

Ad so, my foolish friend, how exactly are you so sure of that? Untill Kojima says "there will NEVER be a Metal Gear game on the Xbox 360" we cannot be sure.

That could also be said about halo. Bungie or M$ never came out and said that it would never be on a Sony system, but we all know it never will be.

Thats an entirely diddferent situation and you know that. 1st party games arent going anywhere, but MGS is a third party sereis and Sony has no say in where it goes. If they did this thread and every rumor about MGS would not exist.